The reliability of the AR-15 vs. the AK-47 designs are babbled about routinely. Here is the only factor that matters.

Any mechanism can break or become fouled to a point that it ceases to function. Kalashnikov’s famed design has a deserved reputation for reliability but it is just a gas-operated, self-loading small arm and it has more in common with the AR-15 than differences.

Without getting into great detail in an engineering level, the AR-15/M-16 does has many flaws. There are two great flaws with this system: 1st, the magazine was never meant to be extremely strong but as a lightweight disposable item. Our American-military mindset is that is not part of the rifle and can be abused. Other countries recognize that the mag is extremely important and they make them very strong with good steel. The 2nd point is that the rifle shoots like a target rifle with high tolerances. The M-16 needs to be cleaned and well lubed with quality oils. There are many other points that I will not mention. The sights are overly complicated and require many hours of instruction to fully understand them.

The AK-47 is made loose to tolerate 3rd world rough handling and lack of care. They designed this rifle as an assault rifle…engaging targets from 0 to 200 meters at the very maximum. The AK-47 was designed to be operated by lower educated and poorly trained troops. Most are not pin-point accurate. Groupings are very inconsistent. There are mechanical reasons for this. Case in point: Safety is not really an important issue so the safety lever is less ergonomic than the M-16….the Soviets designed it that way…they don’t want heir troops messing with the safety all the time…it’s either “on” when nothing is happening or “off” when in combat. The sights are rugged and simple and a child can understand the use of them within minutes. They are a little bit more practical than Americans. I believe the M-16/M-4 is perfect for police work but a real combat weapon should be selected for the military.

I asked my Israeli-born friend who saw real combat in the 1980s about this…. He said, “When we were able, we selected the Gailil over the M-16 when we were actually in dessert combat because of the reliability. In garrison duty, we selected the M-16 because it was lightweight and comfortable to carry”. The Galil is a product improvement over the AK-47.

the reason why the AK jammed is because he had the saftey lever on fire, which basicaly puts a hole in the side of the gun which letts water go through, if he had put it on saftey on, then it would have gone a lot better.

Even though 10 specimens of each weapon type was not used in the testing plus the AR was of a “custom” type…the AK was not a “real” AK…the AK’s dust cover was open and the AR’s was closed….I am still very much impressed with the testing and gives me more respect for an American-designed product. I would also believe that the Ak’s gas ports would allow dust to clog the action. I use a Colt AR-15 and a Armalite Ar-10 for Florida swamp hunting without babying them for a whole week…crud, sand, water, weeds, without any problems. I plan to purchase high quality steel H&K magazines very soon as the biggest problem with ARs centers around the flimsy magazines that can not be easily cleaned….Ted A Sames II, Sames Instinctive Shooting School

I wasn’t trying to prove or disprove anything other than pointing out that AR-15s can be reliable in harsh conditions and AKs, while very durable (and probably more so than ARs), can be made to malfunction.

A few years ago I acquired an old SKS. It provides decent performance out to 200 yards–about the maximum distance I can definitively ID a threat with the unaided eye. Performs well with little lubrication and is relatively light for its caliber. I have an AR15 too. When the zombies come, I plan on having both time-tested rifles available for dispatching the hoards.

The best compromise between AK-47 and AR-15 is finnish RK-95. You can get it in calibres 7,62 x 39 or 5,56 NATO. British gun book says it is the best Kalashnikov ever made. Do not confuse it to RK-62 or RK-76. Those were older models, but they were reliable and accurate weapons (8 cm at 150 metres). Use only finnish cartridges. Do not use bad quality russian ammo.
You will find RK-95 in YOUTUBE. It combines the best features of AR-15 and AK.47. RK-95 has diopteric and night sights and it can launche grenades.
RK-95 is a very durable, reliable and accurate weapon with folding stocks.

A lot of BS from a lot of BS ers. Good training by good trainers tell you to maintain your weapon if you want to use it. Any one using either of these weapons and subsequently taking care of the weapon will find beautiful performance. Yes the AR has a little less tolerances and may be a tiny bit more accurate at a distance, but in the hands of an expert either will kill you grave yard dead.

The best compromise between AK-47 and AR-15 is finnish RK-95. You can get it in calibres 7,62 x 39 or 5,56 NATO. British gun book says it is the best Kalashnikov ever made. Do not confuse it to RK-62 or RK-76. Those were older models, but they were reliable and accurate weapons (8 cm at 150 metres). Use only finnish cartridges. Do not use bad quality russian ammo.
You will find RK-95 in YOUTUBE. It combines the best features of AR-15 and AK.47. RK-95 has diopteric and night sights and it can launche grenades.
RK-95 is a very durable, reliable and accurate weapon with folding stocks.

Test it by yourself. Find it in Youtube. In combat situations you do not always have time enough to clean your weapons. Note The Hamburger Hill case in Vietnam where many US-soldiers were killed when cleaning their weapons.

The situation will even get worse in Arctic conditions e.g. in Alaska or in deset conditions e.g. in Irak or in Afganistan. There RK-95 is the best compromise.

These are the addresses in YOUTUBE, where you can see RK-95 and RK-95TP in action. British gun books say that it is the best Kalashnikov ever made. Very accurate (8 cm at 150 m), durable, reliable weapon. It will not leave you down like M16 did in Vietnam. M16 is prone to jamming because its stucture makes it sensitive to the residue left by propellant. Visit YOUTUBE and you will see RK-95 in action.

This is the realistic scenario in most combat situations. RK-95 is able to work. M16 will fail because of jamming in the harsh combat environment. Mud, dirt, sand, snow and poor quality ammo will do their job.

In Vietnam, for example, the battle of hill 881 near Khe Sanh showed clearly the unreliability of M16. When the field was cleared of american bodies after the battle, it was noticed that a great many of soldiers were killed either because M16 jammed at the critical moment or they were in the laborous process of cleaning their jammed M16 when the enemy managed to launch a counterattack.

The DEC PDP-1, made during the same period as your story, was way too expensive for individuals and that’s why computers never became popular for home and personal use.

Care to cite any war stories that are less than 50 years old?

Or do you really think in the past five decades that the longest serving service rifle in American history, and the current dominating platform for both Service Rifle Across-The-Course and practical 3 Gun competition, hasn’t been greatly improved since then?

According to even the most modern gunbooks M16 does not have a gas piston and thus its design makes it sensitive to the residue left by propellant. For example this bug has not been completely fixed. During all war times ammos have tended to deteriorate of their quality and this further highlightes the problem. Sand and snow make things even worse. Acoording to the gun books no automatic rifle can match the reliability of AK-47 in arctic or in sandy desert conditions. For these purposes for example Galil from Israel, G4 form South Africa and RK-95 from Finland are better options and these are also accurate weapons.

For example british hand gun experts David Miller and Gerard Ridefort in the gun book of their own (Weapons of the Elite Forces) and professors of Oxford and Cambridge says: ”M16 is gas operated, but its design does make it sensitive to propellant that leaves too much residue. Most gas operated rifles divert the gas produced on firing into a gas cylinder (like AK-47); there, it drives back a piston which acts on the bolt and continues the firing cycle. On the M16 there is no gas cylinder. The gas produced on firing is piped directly backwards and works directly on the bolt carrier, blowing it it to the rear”.

The design of M16 is blaimed by the british hand gun experts David Miller and Gerard Ridefort

I guess Eugene Stoner, the US patent of his design and Mark Westrom (current owner of ArmaLite) must all be mistaken about how the AR-15 works.

It is incorrectly believed that the AR-15/M16 rifle designed by Eugene Stoner uses a direct impingement action. In the Stoner system covered by U.S. Patent 2,951,424 (http://www.google.com/patents/US2951424) Stoner specifically states that the action is not direct impingement saying ″This invention is a true expanding gas system instead of the conventional impinging gas system.″

Gas is routed from a port in the barrel directly to a chamber formed in the bolt carrier. The bolt acts as the piston and is sealed with small automobile-style piston rings. It is a gas piston system without an operating rod.

Or perhaps David Miller and Gerard Ridefort should be “blaimed” for not knowing what they’re talking about.

>> M16 is gas operated, but its design does make it sensitive to propellant that leaves too much residue

The United States has had millions of M16 series rifles in inventory over five decades. During the height of deployment, some 100,000 DoD personnel deployed with an issue M16/M4-series at any one time.

You have a video of a stoppage with Stoner rifles. Could be a simple maintenance issue or a bad magazine, either will stop ANY rifle. I posted videos of a stoppage with Kalashnikov rifles. Seems neither one is absolutely perfect.

Properly built and maintained Kalashnikovs are good, reliable rifles. Properly built and maintained AR-15/M16/M4 are good, reliable rifles.

Learn your equipment. Learn how to shoot.

Tell me how many “Leg” points you have? What skill classifications do you hold? Ever enter a shooting match? Ever won?

If the answers to these are all “none”, your lack of skill is a much greater source of unreliability than any imagined AK vs. AR issue.

M4 is a derivative of M16 and it too has more jammings than other moden assault rifles not to talk about AK-47, whose derivatives are South African R4, Israeli Galil and Finnish RK-95.

In the fall 2007, the Army tested the M4 against three other carbines in “sandstorm conditions” at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: the Heckler & Koch XM8, Fabrique Nationale de Herstal SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the Heckler & Koch HK416. The M4 suffered far more stoppages than its competitors: 882 stoppages, 19 requiring an armorer to fix. The XM8 had the fewest stoppages, 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones, followed by the FN SCAR with 226 stoppages and the HK416 with 233.
Magazine failures caused 239 of the M4’s 882 failures. Army officials said the new magazines could be combat-ready by spring if testing went well. There were three extreme dust tests performed in 2007. In the Summer 2007 test again the M4 carbine stopped (fucked up) 882 times.

Complicating the Army search for higher reliability in the M4 is a number of observations of M4 gas piston alternatives that suffer unintended design problems. The first is that many of the gas piston modifications for the M4 isolate the piston so that piston jams or related malfunction require the entire weapon be disassembled, such disassembly cannot be performed by the end user and requires a qualified armorer to perform out of field, whereas any malfunction with the direct-impingement system can be fixed by the end user in field. The second is that gas piston alternatives use an off-axis operation of the piston that can introduce carrier tilt, whereby the bolt carrier fails to enter the buffer tube at a straight angle, resulting in part wearing. The third is that the use of a sound suppressor results in hot gases entering the chamber, regardless of a direct-gas impingement or gas piston design choice. The gas-piston system also causes the firearm to become proprietary to the manufacturer, making modifications and changes with parts from other manufacturers difficult.
Again a derivative of M16 had more stoppages than the other types of modern assault rifles tested, and this is a serious matter in the heat of a combat.

M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its offspring, too.
To their critics, the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited for Afghanistan and Iraq. Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in the worst battles are prone to fail.
Critics also complain about the weapons’ relative lethality. Their lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially when fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many wounds.
A discussion about the mechanisms of wounding could be a full post. One day I’ll take that on. But any discussion about M-4 and M-16 lethality would be incomplete without mentioning an essential variable: bullet composition.
The most commonly used round today, the M855, has a steel penetrator core and was designed to pass through Soviet body armor; some soldiers complain that when it strikes a man wearing only a shirt it can travel through him like an ice pick. Unless it strikes bone squarely, they say, it tends not to dump adequate kinetic energy inside a victim.
Moreover, unlike the former round, the M193, the metal jacket of the M855’s bullet tends not to fragment. This reduces the wound channels and energy transfer into a victim, too.
First translation: the M855 is not the best cartridge for shooting lightly clad insurgents; it is a cartridge designed for a different war. Second translation: some complaints about M-4 and M-16 lethality are likely related to the ammunition, not the rifles.
If all of this seems complex, it’s only the background. Tomorrow we’ll discuss the performance data from surveys of veterans and from reliability tests, and share the Army’s position.
American troops deserve a better rifle-cartridge combination.

M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its offspring, too.
To their critics, the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited for Afghanistan and Iraq. Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in the worst battles are prone to fail.
Critics also complain about the weapons’ relative lethality. Their lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially when fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many wounds.
A discussion about the mechanisms of wounding could be a full post. One day I’ll take that on. But any discussion about M-4 and M-16 lethality would be incomplete without mentioning an essential variable: bullet composition.
The most commonly used round today, the M855, has a steel penetrator core and was designed to pass through Soviet body armor; some soldiers complain that when it strikes a man wearing only a shirt it can travel through him like an ice pick. Unless it strikes bone squarely, they say, it tends not to dump adequate kinetic energy inside a victim.
Moreover, unlike the former round, the M193, the metal jacket of the M855’s bullet tends not to fragment. This reduces the wound channels and energy transfer into a victim, too.
First translation: the M855 is not the best cartridge for shooting lightly clad insurgents; it is a cartridge designed for a different war. Second translation: some complaints about M-4 and M-16 lethality are likely related to the ammunition, not the rifles.
If all of this seems complex, it’s only the background. Tomorrow we’ll discuss the performance data from surveys of veterans and from reliability tests, and share the Army’s position.

In the fall 2007, the Army tested the M4 against three other carbines in “sandstorm conditions” at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: the Heckler & Koch XM8, Fabrique Nationale de Herstal SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the Heckler & Koch HK416. The M4 suffered far more stoppages than its competitors: 882 stoppages (M4 fucked up 882 times), 19 requiring an armorer to fix. The XM8 had the fewest stoppages, 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones, followed by the FN SCAR with 226 stoppages and the HK416 with 233.
Magazine failures caused 239 of the M4’s 882 failures. Army officials said the new magazines could be combat-ready by spring if testing went well. There were three extreme dust tests performed in 2007. In the Summer 2007 test again the M4 carbine stopped (M4 again fucked up) 882 times.

Complicating the Army search for higher reliability in the M4 is a number of observations of M4 gas piston alternatives that suffer unintended design problems. The first is that many of the gas piston modifications for the M4 isolate the piston so that piston jams or related malfunction require the entire weapon be disassembled, such disassembly cannot be performed by the end user and requires a qualified armorer to perform out of field, whereas any malfunction with the direct-impingement system can be fixed by the end user in field. The second is that gas piston alternatives use an off-axis operation of the piston that can introduce carrier tilt, whereby the bolt carrier fails to enter the buffer tube at a straight angle, resulting in part wearing. The third is that the use of a sound suppressor results in hot gases entering the chamber, regardless of a direct-gas impingement or gas piston design choice. The gas-piston system also causes the firearm to become proprietary to the manufacturer, making modifications and changes with parts from other manufacturers difficult.

Lack of marksmanship and handling skill is a far greater cause of small arms unreliability than these claims of equipment problems. Most Marines and Soldiers are at a low, novice level of skill with small arms.

Any idea how to fix that?

Now that The Internet has deemed the AR-15 as unworthy, we’ll just ignore its successful service as the the longest service rifle in American history as well the fact that it continues to be a dominant platform in a number of forms of major competition.

If you convince to the DoD to buy into another platform, Kalashnikov or otherwise, it will just keep me busy with the increased demand in small arms classes needed for NET (New Equipment Training.)

I really don’t care what we shoot. I’m more concerned that American military are typically lousy marksmen. Nobody seems concerned about that.

Watch here how US Marines are training in Finland. They tried to use M16 (AR-15) in Lappland in the temperatures of minus -45 to -55 degree Celsius but M16 was jammed by ice, snow and the extremely low temperatures. Even the plastic parts of M16 crumbled. M16 had many stoppages, jammings and structural flaws and proved to be unreliable in these extreme conditions. That is why M16 had to be abandoned. The US Marines started using finnish RK-95 (an AK-47 derivative) because it was much more reliable and durable weapon in these extreme conditions as one can clearly see in these videos, which were also shown on finnish TV (filmed by YLE, Finnish Broadcasting Company).

The test proves nothing other than if you fill an AK with so much sand that the hammer can’t even reset then it won’t function. It still needs room to move. The AR wouldn’t even make the test if the same was applied, i.e., filling the lower with sand. The differences is that with an AK, there is room inside the receiver for the sand to migrate where as the AR is designed with such tight tolerances that there is no room for any debris. A better test would have been if you would have dropped both rifles with their dust covers open in the ocean letting them sink into the sand then pulled them out and tried firing them. I know only the AK would work then. Maybe for your next test, lock the AR bolt back and leave the safety off on the AK- then pour about a cup of dirt over each, then try to see which one works.

The irony is that when the Yugoslavians tested the M70 till Mechanical Failure, they ran over 89K rounds through the weapon, running bore patches every 10k. The weapon finally stopped when the ejector sheared off and three shell casings were found crushed in the rear of the receiver. Arsenal Bulgaria has a milled AK47 in their museum that has run over 300K rounds. It’s of course a smooth bore, but it still runs. The AK is the most reliable combat arm ever developed by mankind. It is a bench mark that even with all our technology and advances in development- we have yet to surpass. There has never been anything created by any other engineer or designer of weapons that has surpassed the reliability of the Kalashnikov design.

If I was supported by an intricate network of supply chain and an army of armorers along with an endless access to the finest ammo- I’d pick an M16. It’s a fancy rifle for a fancy high tech military that is dependent on that level of support. However if I was dependent only upon the ammo I could find, without supplies, without support- then I’d pick the weapon that has proven itself for decades upon decades in the worse third world conditions on the planet.

You can choke any mechanical device by filling it with so much sand that the components cannot move. You can also drown a man by holding his head under water. Not sure what you were trying to show but had you simply dumped the sand out- it would have ran. Not only that, it would have ran decades later had you buried it on that beach and dug it back up.

>> The weapon finally stopped when the ejector sheared off and three shell casings were found crushed in the rear of the receiver.

So, what you’re saying is Kalashnikov rifles are also subject to mechanical failures. The AK is arguably the most reliable self loading firearm invented (though I’d also point out the Maxim-based machine guns as well) but it can fail. AR rifles may not be as reliable, they are merely very reliable.

>> Arsenal Bulgaria has a milled AK47 in their museum that has run over 300K rounds. It’s of course a smooth bore, but it still runs.

I suspect a number of the commenters of this post aren’t sufficiently skilled marksmen to detect an accuracy decline in such a rifle.

One thing to note on reliability: AR15 platforms are far easier to work on than AKs.

I had an AK that was badly manufactured (Lancaster) and its ejector blade was just a hair too short. What this meant was that sometimes it wouldn’t give a proper hard strike on the brass being extracted, and that brass would then bounce off of the inside of the dust cover and back into the action. Ugly malfunction, and it happened once every mag or two.

Since the ejector blade is a part of the frame rail, there is no way to easily remedy this. I ended up trading it in to a pawn shop I’ll never go back to.

Why US Rifles Jam So Often –
With Fatal Results
By George Belanusgeorgeb@3states.net
11-10-3
Jeff – I noticed your editor’s question on the story about PFC Patrick Miller, where it was asked why so many American weapons jam during heavy combat situations.

On a quick reading of the story, I noticed that Miller said that he had grabbed his rifle when they got stuck in a shoot-it-out type situation. This means to me that Miller grabbed the standard-issue M-16 that has been Army and otherAmerican military branch issue since the Vietnam War.

And that answered the question in just a couple minutes’ time, since the M-16 has always had this reputation of crapping out through jams just when you need it to work in the very worst way. The stories of our guys being found dead in Vietnam after firefights with a hopelessly jammed M-16 are legion, and apparently the so-called fixes the military put in place early on have not remedied the basic problem — what we have in the M-16 is a basically inferior design as far as inherent ability to function under adverse conditions.

The situation with the M-16 is that it operates on direct gas pressure on the action of the rifle to operate the bolt during ejection of the spent cartridge case and subsequent loading of a fresh round from the magazine. This at the time the M-16 was introduced to American troops was a major departure. The old M-1 Garand, the M-14, and the Ruger Mini-14 all work on an indirect gas action. This means that the gas piston under the foreend of the rifel works on a carrier which in turn is attached to the side of the rifle’s bolt. The gas from the piston pushes the carrier to the rear, and the carrier in turn pushes the bolt to the rear to eject the round and get another fresh round out of the magazine on its return cycle. No gas works on the innards of the rifle directly on the older military rifles and the Mini-14, as is the case on the M-16. Consequently, you don’t find gunpowder residue building up in the action’s working parts on the older rifles as you do on the M-16. And this buildup does occur in 100 to 200 rounds, which is easily gone through either on a firing range during practice and even more so, I’ve heard, when you’re returning fire during a firefight.

And the M-16, if my memory of some readings in past years is correct, is also prone to adverse effects from things like dirt and SAND collecting in the action also, which doesn’t help but gum up the works also.

Early on there was an explanation forwarded that the type gunpowder used in the initial lots of 5.56 mm ammo the M-16 uses clogged the works up more than usual, and that particular type powder was replaced by another type. And more attention was put to more frequent cleaning of the M-16 by the troops who had to depend on them. Also there were some changes made on the M-16A1 model, including that forward-assist button that was supposed to help seat a round in the chamber if the gun started to gum up to the point of maybe jamming. The firearm also got one of those selective fire switches that you could dial up a new three shot burst feature with also instead of just single shot, on safe, or full automatic. This was supposed to help in reducing the innards getting crudded up.

Apparently all those fixes didn’t help Miller out since there was that reference to his having to beat on the rifle to get rounds chambered. What that reference means to me is that he was having to resort in a rapid fashion to using the forward assist button to get that next round chambered so he would have that next shot to defend himself and his fellow troops with. Good thing for Miller and his buddies that he didn’t lose sight of what to do in a bad situation with the firearm wanting to jam up with each shot.

On the other hand, I once had one of those Ruger Mini-14s in semi automatic mode, back in the days when 20 and 30 shot clips were readily available for that type and other types of rifles. You could go through maybe a hundred rounds on the firing range in a short time period in semi auto fire, heating the barrel and other parts up fairly well, and it never jammed up. As noted previously this rifle uses the indirect gas action arrangement to function the action for each shot.

And the old AK-47, as well as the SKS rifle that preceded the AK, have apparently never had any problems with jamming like the M-16 has apparently had right up to the present day. I was fortunate enough to see a TV interview during a documentary on the AK with Mikhail Kalashnikov, the Red Army man who developed the AK-47. He said that he built that Army rifle ‘loose’ on purpose to make it as dependable as possible. Apparently he succeeded since I’ve never heard of any AKs jamming in a pinch. And I’ve also heard that some Viet Cong personnel were in the habit of leaving those WW II vintage SKS rifles at the bottom of a local stream only to take it out when some of our troops came in range, then open fire on them without having to do anything to the SKS other than load some ammo into it so it would shoot. They’d pop off up to ten rounds, I guess, and then put the SKS back into the stream and disappear back into the nearest village or rice paddy.

I guess all this shows that elegance in design might be a good thing, but dependability is a lot more important when you’re talking about a rifle or other firearm you might have to use to save your life with in a bad situation.

>> …it was asked why so many American weapons jam during heavy combat situations.

This has more to do with the myth of maintenance that causes many American troops to do actual harm while “cleaning” weapons. These reliablity problems surface during range use, but not for knowledgeable marksman that properly maintain them.

I’ve had the same issue M16A2 and A4 since 2005 and have not yet experienced a stoppage with either one. That’s because I ignore idiot advice from Drill Sergeants and maintain them the way a good marksman does.

>> since the M-16 has always had this reputation of crapping out through jams just when you need it to work in the very worst way.

It has this reputation on the Internet among non-shooters, not among actual marksmen in the real world.

>> Consequently, you don’t find gunpowder residue building up in the action’s working parts on the older rifles as you do on the M-16.

Wrong. This residue is present in ALL firearms. That’s why tools like this exist.

Like you see in this video M16 (AR-15) is a fucking shit. It is an unnecessary complex design that has many flaws and stuctural weaknesses. It has never the same RELIABILITY as the best AK-47 versions (e.g. RK-95) really have. The principles of Mihail Kalashnikov were: ”Keep it simple, keep it reliable”.

Let´s put you in the middle of the combat together with jammed M16. It´s fucking unreliable like you see in these videos. We will let the M16 blow up against you fucking face. How do you like that?

The first video (“M16 Blows up in Kids Face”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh1lyMyejpI) is most certainly ammo related and this would happen with any firearm. The person posting the video notes, “we think two bullets were left in the tube [barrel].”

Second video, running full mags through any firearm (didn’t you notice the first several magazines of flawless function?) can exacerbate wear in anything. A weak hammer/main spring will cause any firearm to fail with light primer strikes. Notice how similar these parts are in the two designs:

When joined the Army and was issued my first M-16, I thought it was the deadliest rifle ever invented. It was the blackest, most evil looking thing ever. It was pure badass. I was in love… sure, I had jams here and there but that was due to the dirty blank ammunition, right? I cleaned my rifle to the point of “surgical instrument clean” and lubed it exactingly according to the gospel of my Drill Sergeants. When I went to fire it with live rounds and found that I would get an occasional jam. Well, this is because it was an old rifle used by hundreds of raw ignorant recruits like myself. Right?

After training I went to a unit that had an Armourer that believed any jam was a personal insult to him… so he used special tools he got from a jewelers and polished every internal bearing surface to a mirror finish. I thought the parts were chromed. I thought that THIS was how an M-16 was supposed to be like. Perfectly smooth and slick in every function from trigger pull to magazine ejection and everything in between. No… I don’t remember having any jams with it… but then again, this obsessive compulsive Armourer always insisted upon checking the rifle and detail stripping and cleaning it when ever I was on down time. Not just my rifle… but every rifle in the unit. If you did get a jam, he would be inquiring as to what you did to his rifle! But this guy was unique… and so were “his rifles”. When I went to a different unit, the rifle I was given was regular Mil-Spec and I had jams for the rest of my time in service. I just thought, well, these are old worn out rifles… Not a new customized rifle like I used to run. I had convinced myself that new AR-15’s wouldn’t jam like this.
I was very wrong. I found this out the hard way with the acquisition of a Bushmaster XM-15A2. It ran flawlessly for the first 20 round box of ammo… *sigh* Slowly, suspicion built. Then suddenly realization hit me like a truck load of Clue. The AR-15 sucks. Crap, my little brother was right. I used to argue with my brother about ARs vs AKs, myself being a full fledged AR-15 Apologist. But he was right… Both rifles use an intermediate cartridge. Neither are full sized rifle rounds. To debate the rifle based only on the caliber is wrong. Proof – you can get an AR chambered in .243… but it is still an “AR” with all of the normal “AR” problems. The Design is critically flawed. “Oh, but the AR is so ergonomic!” Ergonomics are a plus – but what’s the point if the gun doesn’t even go Click!?!
Let’s look at some details.

The AR-15 sucks by design. If you lay out the blue prints of the rifle you discover that the design is fundamentally flawed. The design uses tolerances that are way too tight for a combat weapon. It is ammo sensitive to the point of being finicky. It uses soft alloy receivers and is fed from flimsy magazines that are too weak to operate properly when loaded to full capacity. Then there is the gas system. The rifle defecates where it eats thanks to it’s direct gas impingement system. Compounding that bad idea, we have the use of a tiny gas tube and a horrible breach design that is impossible to clean properly without dental tools and the patience of a dentist doing a root canal. The gas tube itself can warp or break from overheating due to sustained firing. I know, I’ve seen it happen and I’ve done it myself. When the gas tube glows brightly at night to the point it’s lighting your immediate area – this is not good it could go “pop” any moment here. If your gas tube had any weakness in it before – it’s only going to be worse now. If it doesn’t break now – it will have a greater likelihood of breaking in the future.

The extractor design is puny and weak, but worse yet is the spring loaded ejector. The ejector plunger can get stuck with the smallest of particles of brass or copper from the ammunition. A jam from a stuck ejector is a special kind of jam that double feeds the next round causing a wedge that prevents further movement of the action regardless of how hard you try to pull on the bolt handle. To clear it, you have to drop the magazine (if you can) and slam the butt furiously against a hard, unyielding object… preferably Eugene Stoner’s head. (the designer) Unfortunately when you start slamming the rifle like this, you can bend the rifle at a couple different points or you can just break stock. It’s a roll of the dice.

Let’s talk about field stripping for a second. At first it starts out not too badly. Push out a pin and the rifle breaks open like a shotgun allowing you to pull out the bolt carrier assembly. Wait, be careful not to lose or damage that T shaped charging handle… it is made out of relatively soft aluminum compared to the bolt carrier. After the bolt carrier is out, you need to disassemble it. There is a firing pin retaining pin, then the firing pin, then the big rotating bolt pin… Now, you can pull out the bolt. Don’t loose any of those pins, if you do, you are screwed. Now gotta take that little bolt and drift out the little extractor pin – careful not to let the spring fly. Then there is the ejector and its little pin and spring.

Now that you have all of these things taken down… clean them. While cleaning you will notice that in a great many hard to reach places you have a black deposit that must be removed. This is carbon. This is the defecation that I mentioned earlier. It hits the metal flaming hot and under pressure. Do you know what heat and pressure does to carbon? Turns the shit into diamonds that’s what it does. This black carbon is so hard that it has to be scraped off with a tool. Oops… not too hard… you don’t want to scratch the parts. You can use your firing pin, but it’s not the best tool for it and you don’t want to damage the firing pin… that would be a bad thing.
Be certain that you clean out the insides of the bolt carrier where the gas tube is and the surfaces where the firing pin operate. More carbon there… and on the firing pin it’s self. You can easily go through a dozen or so pipe cleaners in the bolt and carrier system. Once all the parts are cleaned and inspected and properly lubed, it can all be reassembled. All of this might take you about 45 minutes to an hour if you want your rifle to “Pass Inspection”. Now there is the rifle it’s self.

There is the lower receiver and trigger group…. More pipe cleaners and some Q-Tips to get down in there. After the lower is done, it’s time for the upper receiver. You have the main tube portion that is hard to reach all the areas in there… then the charging handle raceway which is even more interesting. The gas tube needs to be cleaning as well. Pipe Cleaners, high pressure solvent injectors, harsh language… all required to clean that. Once this is done now you are in for a special treat. The chamber. The AR-15’s chamber is shaped like a retarded star and you have to get behind the lugs in there. Strange brushes, pipe cleaners, language that would make a drunk Irishman blush… all required to get the chamber clean and none of it allow you to get the chamber perfectly clean.

After this chamber of tortures, you can now do the barrel like a normal rifle. There you go. Put it all back together again and then wipe the whole thing down and your done. Through the entire process you have let an entire movie play, eaten some dinner, and drank about 4 and a half Cold Ones. Your Drill Sergeant would no be proud. Try doing all this in the field, during bad weather conditions, stress, hunger, fatigue, the threat of death, and no Cold Ones… not much fun is it? Now remember this… the phrase “It functions well if its cleaned properly.” You will hear that a lot about the AR-15. In fact, in regards to the AR-15, you will ALWAYS hear that. So get used to it. You’ll hear it again. The flaw is the rifle’s gas system. Should the gas system be redesigned to use an operating rod and gas piston to push the bolt carrier back – that would be 75% of the rifles problem, 20% the lack of a fixed ejector, and the last 5% is the chamber and locking lugs design that makes it such a chore to clean.

The only plus for the AR’s gas impingement system is that it has fewer parts. Supposedly, this makes for a more accurate rifle system than one which utilizes an op rod like an M-14/M1 Garand or an op rod attached to a gas piston like an AK. However, the problem is that because the hot gasses are blown back into the action, only certain propellants may be used lest the system suffers total breakdown due to carbon pollution. This was the problem which led to way too many U.S. casualties during the Viet Nam war. Going to the Garand or Kalashnikov type action will produce a gun which is more robust and less sensitive to the type of powder in the ammunition. However, the tradeoff is weight and more moving parts. Supposedly this means less accuracy. Funny how the M-21 sniper rifle system uses this type of action. Go figure. Admittedly the M-21/M-14 is a higher maintenance gun than the AR, and this is one of the reasons why ARs are superceding the M-14 in matches. The other reason is familiarity with the rifle… since ARs are so popular and are the US military’s service rifle, more people know the AR than they do the M-14.

Not only can the AR jam so easily, but it doesn’t even make a good club.
I’m going to catch a lot of flak for this piece… The AR-15 has many advocates and I have just pissed them all off to the man. I’ll get emails about this… here are what they are going to say – Well no… the first thing that are going to say is that I don’t know what I am talking about… I wasn’t enlisted because I don’t publish my unit… Well, I don’t publish my fucking credit card number either… dumbass. So other than personal attacks (which I get the most because they can’t attack the idea, they have to attack the man) here are the arguments:

1) The M16 is so accurate!
Answer: Accuracy isn’t the number one requirement of an assault rifle and does you little good if the gun doesn’t fire when the trigger is pulled.

2) It works fine if you clean it!
Answer: A service rifle should still work fine even when you don’t have the time to clean it. Like when people are shooting at you. If it gets too muddy you should be able to open the action, piss into it to rinse the mud chunks out of it, and be back in the fight.

3) It’s very light!
Answer: And it breaks! However this very light AR-15 is no longer light when you add in all the extras that are the style these days… two white lights, vertical fore grip, full length rail for your short compact optical sights… lasers… AM/FM tape deck… There is a whole Gun Industry Sub-Industry revolved around the AR-15. There are so many accessories the AR is nothing more than a Black Barbie Doll for Boys. You can dress it up for a night on the town or a day at the beach in your little pink convertible… it’s fabulous! By the time your rifle is dressed out like one of the guys from the Blackhawk Industries ads… it’s no longer very light. It now weighs as much as an M-249 SAW.

4) I’ve fired blah, blah number of rounds through MY AR, and it works fine.
Answer. Not while on your belly in the dirt crawling through God knows what. Punching holes through paper targets at the range is fine… the AR-15 is a great little .223 target rifle. But a fighting rifle it is not. “As long as you do your part…”

This is a WEAPON… Not a Bench Rest comp-rifle. A weapon gets used and abused… not treated like a Faberge Egg. “Doing your part” should include pissing into the action to rinse the mud out of it – and not much more.
You like the AR? Fine. Enlist and try it out where it is supposed to be used. One thing to think about… The AR was designed back in the 1960s, when people smoked a lot of pot… Not saying that Stoner smoked dope, but it would explain a few things. Since that time there have been dozens of different military guns designed all over the world. The designers of these weapons had the advantage of being able to look at what else was out there and pick what they liked the best. So my question is, over the last forty some odd years, how many new military rifles have come out using the AR gas system? (The .308 version of the AR-15 called the SR-25 or AR-10 doesn’t count) How many have come out using a piston? How many have a spring loaded ejector vs. a fixed ejector? With some form of gas piston or op rod since the AR: K2, G36, SAR, Valmet, Sako M90, Sig 550, FNC, Galil, Tavor, AN 94, FARA 98, Aug, INSAS, AR 70/90, AR 18, Stoner 63. I’m not sure if it is Singapore or Taiwan who has built a copy of the M16, but it even has a gas piston! I’ve probably forgotten a few as well. Who else has used direct gas impingement in their designs? I can’t think of any at the moment.

“The best way to improve the AR-15 is to unscrew the front sight, and put a new gun under it.” – Kevin McKlung, aka Mad Dog.
Let’s talk about the cartridge now, for just a moment. 5.56MM is another name for .223 basically. In essence, it’s just a big .22 rifle. You can even fire .22 LR through the AR-15 accurately with an adapter bolt mechanism. There are those that say that 5.56MM is plenty powerful enough for combat and even inflict more wound damage than a 7.62X39MM or even the mighty .308. This is completely untrue. Just because you saw a graph that some guy drew with MS Paint that illustrates a wound channel in ballistic gel doesn’t mean that what you saw with the truth.

“Well under 100 meters…” No. No it doesn’t. The .308 fires a bigger, fatter, heavier bullet with a greater power charge behind it. The .308 has a greater range do it’s tremendous ballistic advantage at any range. Muzzle to 1,000 yards out… well beyond where a 5.56MM weapon can effectively engage.
You want to talk power from the AR’s “hyper velocity”? Then how come police tactical units are using 5.56MM weapons because of the reduced risk of over penetration?

Just about any .308 load (WARNING: Graphic Exaggeration Ahead!) will blow a big enough hole through a person to toss a cat through, so don’t even go there about 5.56MM ballistics. Especially when your talking about the shorter 16 inch barreled versions of the AR. When you shorten the barrel of a rifle, your reducing it’s velocity and the only thing the M-16 has going for it is velocity. After chopping it down, your velocity is now just average. Let’s be quite frank… there are some .22LR loads that can almost catch up to it.
FACT: AR-15/M-16 based rifles SUCK. The Army has done its damnedest to make people think they don’t… but let’s not take my word for it – let’s take it straight from the horse’s mouth. Read THIS. If the AR is so great, how come they have been trying to replace it? Why has the Special Forces just awarded a contract to FN for their new SCAR rifle? Why? I’ve told you why. I’ve yet to get an email from a real combat veteran who has seen more than a single instance of action who thinks the AR-15/M-16 family of rifles is a good weapon. Even when I was in, there were XM-X or some designation rifle trials… to include new variants of the M-16, one of which was the flat top, and apparently that won… Even though it was still the lowest scoring rifle in the mix according to the grunts they let play with them. Reading this article, you find a nice little phrase about using an operating rod to improve the reliability because like I have said, it self pollutes. It shits on it’s own dinner plate. I like the XM-8, but I’d like it better if it was in .300 Whisper.

PS:
I wrote this piece a long time ago… It has garnered me more flak than anything else I have ever written. It is linked to many discussion forums all over the net where people who disagree with my opinion elect to voice it through personal insults and asking questions to their forum – but not to me. That’s fine. I don’t consider myself to be taken to task by zit faced, roll-playing, counter-strike addicted pussies.

What REAL SOLDIERS have to say about the M-4/M-16:
3rd ID soldier: “I know it fires very well and accurate [when] clean. But sometimes it needs to fire dirty well too.”

25th Infantry Division soldier: “The M4 Weapon in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan was quick to malfunction when a little sand got in the weapon. Trying to keep it clean, sand free was impossible while on patrols or firefights.”
82nd Airborne Division soldier: “The M4 is overall an excellent weapon, however the flaw of its sensitivity to dirt and powder residue needs to be corrected. True to fact, cleaning will help. Daily assigned tasks, and nonregular hours in tactical situations do not always warrant the necessary time required for effective cleaning.”

75th Ranger Regiment member, SOCOM: “Even with the dust cover closed and magazine in the well, sand gets all inside; on and around the bolt. It still fires, but after a while the sand works its way all through the gun and jams start.”

The 507th Maintenance Company, ambushed outside Nasariyah in 2003 during the opening days of the ground invasion of Iraq, might concur with all of the above. The post-incident report released by the US Army had this to say:
“Dusty, desert conditions do require vigilance in weapons maintenance… However, it is imperative to remember that at the time of the attack, the 507th had spent more than two days on the move, with little rest and time to conduct vehicle repair and recovery operations.”

The last word will be left to SOCOM’s Major Chaz Bowser:
“We buy new laptop computers every few years across the gamut, so couldn’t we do the same with our single most important piece of military equipment? …. Waiting for a leap-ahead technology based on a kinetic energy weapon platform is a waste of time and money, so we need to look at what is out there now…. What the Army needs is a weapon that is now ready for prime-time and not a developmental system…. The requirement comes from the field, not from an office in some garrison activity, not from some consultant and definitely not from a vendor.
Let’s do this quickly without all the bureaucracy typically associated with change. Find someone in our ranks who can make a decision – who hasn’t floated a retirement resume with a gun company – and make the decision now. Just look how fast we were all issued the ‘highly coveted’ black beret or the digital uniform. Find that recipe card, change out the word ‘Velcro’ with ‘battle rifle’ and that may be a start to finding a solution [DID: which, he acknowledges, could be Colt’s M4 if that’s what the competition shows]. Our men and women deserve much better than we are giving them, and shame on us.“

>> You like the AR? Fine. Enlist and try it out where it is supposed to be used.

Geez… I thought my twenty-four years of continuous military experience (and counting as I’m still in the US Army Reserve) might count for something.

Your long winded rant echoes what many other non-marksmen and inexperienced shooters have already claimed here. It does not match the opinion of any experienced marksman with combat experience I’ve met, which includes every member of the USAR Marksmanship Program with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade.

I’m sure there are personnel that experienced problems with their equipment in combat. These same personnel also had problems on the range and for the same reasons of low skill and inexperience. I’ve seen the same thing with Kalashnikovs. Hand a novice a piece of equipment he doesn’t fully understand and there’s bound to be problems, especially under stress. Doesn’t need to be combat as competitive stress will reveal the same issue.

Most military personnel are novice marksmen. Replacing the AR-15/M16/M4 with something else won’t fix that.

>> I cleaned my rifle to the point of “surgical instrument clean” and lubed it exactingly according to the gospel of my Drill Sergeants.

This is designed to fit as a plug in the stock and goes with the cleaning rod that typically fits under the barrel. The countries that issue AKs realize periodic maintenance is necessary and include a kit that stays with the rifle.

This is the same tools and maintenance needed to maintain an AR-15. In fact, for routine maintenance (what ArmaLite calls “combat clean”) an AR-15 breaks down to less parts than an AK-47/74 and can be done in the same time it takes to brush your teeth (I hope we’re doing that at least once a day…)

BoreSnake or similar to swab the bore, quick wipe down with a rag and cleaning brush (or old tooth brush), a few drops of oil inside the carrier, and light lube on moving parts. Done! I rarely clean my personal or issue rack-grade AR-15/M16s more than this, only removing the bolt from the carrier once every year or two, and have yet to experience a stoppage with rifles I’ve shot for more than a decade.

A person claiming this is too much maintenance should be issued a dull stick, not a rifle.

Mark Westrom, President of ArmaLite, Inc. took over ArmaLite back in the early 1990s, taking the company into the 21st Century with a gusto, and he’s never shied away from speaking his mind on carbine development and innovation (or lack thereof). Westrom was an Army Ordnance Officer in the ’70s and a competitive rifle and pistol shooter for the Army and Reserve. He also published impressive research and shooting courses on Rapid Semiautomatic fire and its effects.

Here are his thoughts on the move to replace the AR-15/M16.

The political snarl has become so deep that the Army is soliciting a new carbine to take a look at everything available. The solicitation is being stimulated by commercial and political pressures, and I doubt if we’ll see anything new. It’ll be too expensive. I’m going to make a prediction. The prediction is that while one rifle or another may have a feature that is liked, in the end a few minor changes will be made to the M16 and M4 system, and that’ll be as far as it goes.

None of the new firearms being proposed does what the M16 did in its day. The M16 led to a new marksmanship doctrine and provided a substantially new combat capability. The M16 provided an intense, close-in fighting capability. Merely changing from one compact system to another compact system doesn’t give you any fundamental change. The weapons systems being considered only offer a suspect or theoretical difference in performance. The reliability of the M16 when in good condition—cleaned and lubed—is so high, I don’t believe that it’s worth the money to change to a new weapons system. You would have to see a substantial improvement in performance, and the performance with the M16 and M4 is very good.

Debates about whether or not the current service rifle is good enough are not new. It seems when a rifle reaches legendary status, said rifle is deemed infallible. Things like the AK-47 with its legendary status have the myth that the weapon is unjammable, a myth perpetuated because of its history and status.

Last week the U. S. Marine Corps released a report on the Garand rifle. Because the Marines know a lot about small arms, and had just adopted the Garand, the report was authoritative and timely. It was also:

The Test. Until lately, the Marines’ standard rifle was the 38-year-old war-tested Springfield, which was also the Army’s rifle until 1936. Since the Army adopted the Garand, the Marine Corps has been under pressure to do the same. The Army last week, had about as many Springfields as Garands in service, but was substituting Garands as fast as production (about 700 a day) permitted.

Although the Marines are part of the Navy, they get their small arms from the War Department, and wartime supply problems would be simplified if both services used the same rifle. Last winter the Marine Corps decided to have the rifle matter out once & for all. A board was appointed to test the bolt-action Springfield and three semi-automatic rifles (Garand, Winchester, Johnson). The board included such acknowledged experts as Lieut. Colonel William W. Ashurst, a crack rifleman, and Lieut. Colonel Merritt A. Edson, who had earned Marine Corps fame in Nicaragua, hunting down Sandinistas. The Winchester, barely out of the laboratory, was never in the running. The much-publicized Johnson did better than the Winchester, did not equal the Garand in over-all performance.

For practical purposes the tryout resolved into a contest between 1) the Garand and the Springfield, and 2) the different systems of combat fire which each represented. The old-fashioned Springfield puts down a sure but comparatively slow fire (12-15 aimed shots a minute, for an average rifleman), is therefore the darling of those who believe with Colonel William Prescott of Bunker Hill (“Don’t fire until you see the white of their eyes”) in deliberate, sharpshooting marksmanship. The Garand is three to three-and-a-half times faster, is therefore the logical choice of those who put high fire power above all else.

But, said the Marine board: “Two things stand out as essential in the shoulder weapon for the Marine Corps; one is ‘dependability,’ and the other ‘volume of fire.’ Bearing in mind the amphibious missions in the Marine Corps, the board places dependability first. . . .”

After boiling down results of all the tests for accuracy, ruggedness, general fitness for combat, the board rated the rifles: 1) Springfield; 2) Garand; 3) Johnson; 4) Winchester. Best that the board could say for the Garand was that it was “superior to the other semi-automatic rifles . . .”; “superior in the number of well-aimed shots that can be fired per minute”; could be quickly cleaned in the field. Sum & substance of the findings was that the Garand was a fair-weather rifle, excellent on the practice range but far from good enough for the Marines when the going got tough. The going in the test was very tough. Examples:

– The rifles were doused in mud “of light consistency.” Results: “The M-1903 [Springfield] rifle can be operated. However, the bolt became harder to operate as the test progressed. . . . The M-1 [Garand] rifles would not function and the longer an attempt was made to operate the bolt by hand the harder it became to open.”
– The board assumed “that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach.” The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired “in the normal manner.” But “the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles . . . failed this test.”

– The board assumed “that troops have landed through heavy surf sufficient to break completely over men and equipment, and immediately engage in combat on a sandy beach.” Results: both Garands failed to operate as semi-automatic rifles (i.e., reload automatically after each round). One failed completely and the firer had to hammer the bolt with a mallet; “the other operated by hand with extreme difficulty. …” The Springfields continued to work, with slight difficulty. On these salt water tests, the Garand was rated last, the Springfield first.

– All the rifles got a thorough dousing in fresh water (assumption: heavy rain). Results: The Garands failed again.

– One of the toughest tests was for endurance in prolonged firing (9,000-10,000 rounds). On over-all efficiency and ruggedness, the Springfield was rated ahead of the Garand, which was second. On comparative accuracy at the end of 9,000 rounds, the Garand rated last of the four rifles, the Springfield first. But up to 3,000 rounds, the Garand was very accurate, earned the board’s hearty praise at this stage.

– The Johnson hand-fired “with ease” through most of the mud, salt water and fresh water tests when the Garand failed, but had so much trouble (broken parts) in other phases that the board rated it well below the Garand.

Said the board: “In those tests which simulated adverse field conditions, such as exposure to dust, rain, mud, salt water, sand, etc., the [Springfield] could always be operated with some degree of proficiency. Whereas the semi-automatic weapons generally failed to function mechanically and, in most cases, the gas-operated rifles [Garand, Winchester] could not even be manually operated after a few shots had been fired. . . . The tests . . . were undoubtedly severe as it was believed that they had to approach the extreme in order to be all inclusive. . . . The board realizes that only a certain proportion of the rifles in any one operation . . . will be subjected to the severest conditions, and that the remainder will function normally.” This proportion might work out all right for a large force carrying semiautomatics. But “it is … doubtful if this is true for the Marine Corps, where small units are usually employed and thereby place a correspondingly greater value on reliability and efficiency of each individual rifle.”

The Army’s Side. A fair question was: Why, then, did the Marine Corps adopt the Garand? In an explanation last week, Marine Corps headquarters in Washington put more emphasis on the Garand’s high fire power, less on the Springfield’s dependability, than the testing board did.

That was the Army’s case. After the Marines adopted the Garand, Under Secretary of War Robert Porter Patterson declared that the report completely vindicated the Garand. When the report first came out he showed only that portion which called the Garand the best of the semiautomatics. General Charles Macon Wesson, too, talked as though the report proved all that he and his Ordnance Department had claimed for their creation.

He also said that Ordnance tests had already and conclusively proved the Garand’s efficiency.

Up to last week, $24,000,000 had been appropriated for Army Garands, and the Marines have $3,000,000 more to spend for them. Some 100,000 had been issued to troops, including a few to the Marine Corps.

Civilian Engineer John C. Garand and his co-workers at Springfield Armory had licked many of their worst production problems, still had a tough job, but were doing very well at it. Winchester Repeating Arms Co. has been trying to get into Garand production for 17 months, has a contract for 65,000 Garands, last week was edging into real production after 17 months of arduous effort. By next year the Army expects to have enough Garands (400,000) for its expanded force (not all soldiers are riflemen).

Wavell’s Experience. In the light of the full report, released by the Marines last week, another general’s experience with small arms was significant. The New York Times Magazine reprinted excerpts from three lectures which General Sir Archibald Wavell, British commander in the Middle East, delivered in 1939. In a discourse on good generals and how they are made, he had evoked the mud, the blood, the guns of World War I:

“Rifles and automatic weapons submitted to the [British] small arms committee are, I believe, buried in mud for 48 hours or so before being tested for their rapid firing qualities. The necessity for such a test was very aptly illustrated in the late war, when the original Canadian contingent arrived in France armed with the Ross rifle, a weapon which had shown its superior qualities in target shooting . . . in peace. In the mud of the trenches it was found to jam after a very few rounds ; and after a short experience of the weapon under active service conditions the Canadian soldier refused to have anything to do with it and insisted on being armed with [another] rifle.”

You can’t fix stupid.
It is extremely common for troops to want to lose their service rifle. In the Falklands the Brits were stealing the Argenteans auto FALs and the Argenteans were stealing the Brits semi FALs.

If someone people want to believe that one system will never break then… well, you can’t fix stupid. And that seems to be the thing about gun owners, they are either extreme one way or extreme the other. The rifle will either never go down or it can’t function with the tiniest piece of dirt and there is no in between.

There were people who were honestly shocked when they saw an AR fire with dirt on the carrier of an open ejection port and there were people who were shocked when an M14 stopped firing on YouTube after getting rolled around it and packed with mud (ironically to show how reliable it is).

People just don’t seem to get past what the experts say. Things like “sand in the chamber is sand in the chamber and it doesn’t matter what chamber it is” seem to be simply dismissed.

Regarding the article “Fouling caused by the direct impingement gas system makes the M4/M4A1 Carbine unreliable.” If you read the article, in the end, the rifle starts to have issues because of fouling.

From the article: “With good magazines–I used USGI aluminum of various makes so as to replicate military use as closely as possible–there were no issues until I reached 2450 rounds fired. At 2450 rounds the rifle would not complete the recoil cycle due to the additional friction caused by the fouling and no lubrication, and exacerbated by the extra buffer weight.”

So basically fouling causing malfunctions isn’t a myth and pretty much mirrors what most people find. The AR is a good rifle, it’s accuracy is due to it’s tight tolerances but also doesn’t allow room for debris around the moving the components. A good example of this is the lower, it’s extremely tight in terms of parts positioning and there is nearly no where for any type of debris to move away from the components. A little handful of dirt in the lower would jam it up good while an AK has tons of room for debris and takes so much debris to jam it that the hammer wouldn’t even have enough room to reset- which is what your “beach” test showed.

MAC military arms channel does a good side by side reliability test between an Russian AK 74 and Colt M4, covering the rounds in sand, putting sand in the receivers etc. The AR doesn’t take much debris to start having issues while the AK pretty much runs like a top even with a handful of sand inside.

No rifle is perfect but the AK was designed to be produced quickly, with loose tolerances, large moving parts, and plenty of area around the moving parts such that debris is not a factor in it’s reliability.

I own both AR’s and AK’s. I’ve run them enough to know their strengths and weaknesses. For me, I own both because if true SHTF happens, I’ll grab an AK but otherwise, an AR is good for range fun.

>> an AK has tons of room for debris and takes so much debris to jam it that the hammer wouldn’t even have enough room to reset- which is what your “beach” test showed.

And if the hammer doesn’t have enough room to reset then the AK will cease to function. The loose, open tolerances that allow the AK to achieve high reliability can also allow it to take on so much debris that such a stoppage can occur, possibly sooner than an AR-15 in an identical situation. Or the AR-15 may fail sooner if the situation were different. It depends.

The reason every issue Kalashnikov includes maintenance/cleaning equipment is because such maintenance is required to ensure continued reliable function. This is true for every mechanical device.

It is incorrectly believed that the AR-15/M16 rifle designed by Eugene Stoner uses a direct impingement action. In the Stoner system covered by U.S. Patent 2,951,424 (http://www.google.com/patents/US2951424) Stoner specifically states that the action is not direct impingement saying ″This invention is a true expanding gas system instead of the conventional impinging gas system.″

Gas is routed from a port in the barrel directly to a chamber formed in the bolt carrier. The bolt acts as the piston and is sealed with small automobile-style piston rings. It is a gas piston system without an operating rod.

This design doesn’t render it “uniquely susceptible” to problems more than any other self-loading, piston-driven, gas-operated action does because it functions on the same principles. Expanding gas from the fired cartridge pushes through a port and into a piston, actuating the mechanism.

It is commonly known as Direct Impingement despite what Stoner believed it be. It directly routes gases from the bore back into the receiver. It is not a true piston platform in terms of a long stroke or short stroke common piston system. It is also perhaps one of the worse designs for a military weapon because in order to remain reliable it has to be cleaned fairly often, not to mention the tight tolerances required around the bolt in relation to the carrier in or order to trap the gases necessary to cycle the action. It has no room around the carrier in relation to the receiver for debris, no room around the bolt in relation to the carrier for debris, no room around the fire control group in relation to the lower receiver for debris. It has to be well oiled in order to offset the building of carbon fouling around the bolt itself just to run and tolerates little in terms of debris entering the system.

It’s a good system for accurate fire in relatively sterile conditions. Your video simply showed it’s ability to keep debris from entering the system as long as the bolt is closed and a mag is inserted. Drop that rifle with the bolt back or mag out in the sand it would have required a complete detail strip just to get it up and running again. You poured about two cups of dirt into the AK action to get it to choke, the AR wouldn’t have handled even a percentage of that- as proven by the videos on the Military Arms Channel.

Here’s a little more realistic demonstration, MAC shows that the AR does well as a “closed system”, it’s when dirt enters the action that it chokes the AR and it goes down quickly.

Same test as done on an AK 74, it runs fine and he dumps the sand out simulating a quick field condition.

>> [The AR-15] is a good system for accurate fire in relatively sterile conditions.

Just like the M1 Garand is a fair-weather rifle, excellent on the practice range but far from good enough for the Marines when the going got tough. At least that’s what Time magazine published about it on March 24, 1941 (“ARMY: Report on the Garand“)

>> It has to be well oiled in order to offset the building of carbon fouling around the bolt itself just to run and tolerates little in terms of debris entering the system.

Just like the AR-15/M16, Kalashnikov’s famed AK-47 experienced initial reliability problems. One difference was the Soviets weren’t forced into fielding these initial design problems during Viet Nam. Consider if these initial, flawed copies of Kalashnikov’s design had been forced into combat instead of being rejected at the factory.

Early production AK-47s were broken down into two distinct batch types – the version from 1948 and the version succeeding these from 1952. However, the early forms – with their stamped sheet metal receivers – proved inherently flawed, mainly due to the sheet-metal stamping technology found in throughout Russia at the time leading many production AK-47s to be rejected right at the factory.

This inevitably forced the use of a machined receiver (from solid steel) instead and delayed large-scale entry of the assault rifle until the mid-1950s. The machined process covered AK-47 production from 1951 to 1959 and led to an increase in overall weight of the weapon. However, this method of manufacture itself was proving to be too expensive in the realm of Soviet mass production efforts and, thusly, forced a revision of the AK-47 family. The resulting effort went on to become the AKM (M= “Modernized”) which reverted construction of the assault rifle back to its stamped steel roots – the process refined after much study of German wartime methods – producing a decidedly cheaper and lighter rifle. A new muzzle installment (with a noted slant) was introduced to combat muzzle climb. Several other subtle modifications were also introduced and the AKM was further branched to become the AKMS which introduced a folding metal buttstock – a compact feature respected by paratroopers and vehicle crews alike. One identifying feature of the AKM series versus the AK-47 was its shortened “dimple” imprint above the magazine feed – the AK-47 sported a longer dimple there. Overall AK-47 production spanned from 1949 to 1975 with involved facilities (among others) being the famed Izhevsk and Tula state arsenals.

Just like the M16/AR-15, the M14 had its share of problems when first introduced.

THE U.S. ARMY’S BLUNDERBUSS BUNGLE THAT FATTENED YOUR TAXES
by John S. TompkinsTrue Magazine, April 1963

Washington, D.C. – After nearly 20 years of Pentagon bungling that has cost US taxpayers over $100 million so far, the Army is issuing our GIs a new automatic rifle that experts think is inferior to the gun we already have.

The rifle is called the M14. It is slowly replacing the M1 Garand carried by millions of servicemen in World War II and Korea. The only trouble is it doesn’t work as well as the M1 and it’s much harder and more expensive to manufacture.

If you haven’t heard about the M14 or its troubled history don’t be surprised. The Army has been rather quiet about it lately, and with good reason.

The design, testing and production of the M14 were so badly botched that Defense Secretary MacNamera called the whole thing a ‘disgrace.’ And John C. Garand, inventor of the M-1 of which the M14 is a bastardized version – worries about what will happen when it’s used in combat. Reports from Vietnam indicate that Garand’s fears may well be justified.

All told, the whole fantastic story of how the so-called ‘new’ Army rifle was developed is beginning to sound like one of the biggest snafus in U.S. military history. The M14 may not turn out to be a disaster, but considering the time and money spent on it the results are certainly disappointing. At least this is the opinion of retired four-star Marine Gen. Vernon E. Megee, former Commander Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, and a rifleman’s rifleman from Haiti and Nicaragua to Iwo Jima. General Megee’s capsule description of the M14: ‘They labored mightily and brought forth a mouse.’

But the punch line of the M14 story is even more fantastic than the blunders in the rifle’s development. Now that the M14 is in production and is being issued to troops, it turns out that the rifle is not being put to the use that the Army claimed required its development in the first place. A fully automatic rifle, the M14 was developed to replace the semiautomatic M1 rifle. But 90 percent of the M14s currently being issued are set for semi-automatic fire only.

The M14 rifle is a case of too little and too late. The rifle represents too little improvement on what we’ve already got – the M1 Garand. The new design has come along so late that the rifle is probably already obsolete.

The situation is bad enough. Far more disturbing is the mounting evidence that the M14’s design contains some potentially dangerous flaws.

The main weakness lies in the gas cylinder and piston that operate the M14. The system is complicated and finicky beast built to such tight tolerances that it almost invites jamming in combat conditions. But rather than openly redesign the rifle the Army had chosen to quietly do a series of ‘modifications’ on it that bear all the earmarks of a doctoring job to save the M14 from public exposure as a failure. This sort of attempt to make a bad bet come out all right is a hallmark tradition at the Pentagon.

The ‘new’ M14 really began life in the closing days of World War II. Following the lead of some tinkering GI gunsmiths, Army Ordnance asked John C. Garand, its chief small-arms designer, to come up with a version of his M1 that could be fired full-automatic like a machine gun. As Garand recalls it now, he followed the design of his M1 fairly closely, making slight changes in the bolt, firing pin, ejector and other parts. He also added a 20-round detachable box magazine and a selector switch for full or semi-automatic fire. A muzzle brake was screwed ontoThis altered M1 was called the T20 rifle and Garand says it tested out as a very successful design. To explain the designation: Army policy is to prefix a test rifle number with the letter ‘T.’ When it’s modified in a major way an ‘E’ is added after the ‘M’ numbered weapon. Anyway, if the war had continued the T20 would have been manufactured and used in large numbers as the M2 Garand. As it was, Garand had a number of them made up by hand and had completed several months of work on production tooling when the fighting stopped. The T20 was never issued to troops but development continued on it until 1947, by which time it was called the T20E2. At that point the design was shelved – though not forgotten.

While the T20 was being developed – in fact just before the end of the war – the Army told gun companies and inventors of its need for an entirely new rifle. The Army said it wanted a versatile rifle that would replace the M1, as well as the Browning Automatic Rifle (known to GIs as the BAR), the .30 caliber carbine and the M3 submachine gun or ‘grease gun.’ This was the kick-off on a 12-year boondoggle during which 10 rifles were tested, but the Army’s own Springfield Armory design always seemed to come out on top.

The doubtful objectivity of these so-called ‘tests’ makes you wonder why the Army even asked for outside designs. It was like playing poker with a stacked deck, and of course the house won the game. Everyone knew the Army would win but the show continued for 12 expensive years anyway. The winning design, called the T44E4 was adopted in May, 1957, as the new M14 rifle.
What was the T44E4?

It was, and is, a cobbled up version of John Garand’s automatic M1 – the wartime T20. After frantic efforts to design a really new rifle during the long years of testing, the Army ended up by going back to the only workable one it hand. But the problem is that the Army messed up Garand’s design with the so-called improvements that are still causing trouble five years later.
As Secretary MacNamara observed, compared with building a missile system or satellite, designing a rifle is a relatively simple job. It should have been. What happened during the years of M14’s development is a sorry record of failure, delay and double-dealing. It reflects the Pentagon’s continued arrogance in never conceding that anyone outside the service can come up with a good idea.
The reason that Garand’s highly successful T20 was shelved in 1947 was that the Army wanted ‘a more radical and comprehensive solution’ to the problem of a new rifle. You can hardly quarrel with this arm, but every time they got near it they turned their back on the target.

The search for a radical solution to the rifle problem began logically enough with a new ammunition. The new cartridge – a shortened version of the .30-06 was designated the T65.
At about this time, NATO was formed in a fine spirit of cooperation it attempted to standardize weapons and ammunition. The first step was the rifle cartridge. The British, who had been working on on new one since before World War I, wanted their .280 caliber round adopted by NATO. In this they were joined by the Belgians and several other countries. But our Army, while chivarously agreeing that the .280 British might be even better than our T65 for rifle use, pointed out that the ‘new’ rifle we were looking for would also be a machine gun and needed a heavier punch. So the Army doggedly insisted on the T65 and designated its size in millimeters – 7.62mm – to show our European allies we were really NATO minded. This particular attempt at cooperation ended with both sides going ahead on their own ammunition.

Meanwhile the search for a new rifle was proceeding with painful slowness. Between 1945, when the project was officialy started, and mid-1952 only $1,900,000 was spent on it. For several years only one engineer was assigned to the job at Springfield Armory. Still, the first rifle design that emerged from this long sleep seemed quite new and rand asked us to test them before going ahead full time with the T25.

Confidently, the Army agreed to test the two foreign rifles. One was the British EM2, a really radical design with the magazine and action behind the trigger somewhat like the FN rifle designed by the Belgian firm of Fabrique Nationale d’Armes de Guerre. Among its features was a hinged action that folded down for easy removal of parts. Both rifles were in .280 caliber. The shooting was done at Fort Benning, Georgia, and when the smoke had cleared the Army was appalled to find that its darling T25 had scored lower than either the EM2 or the FN rifles. The story should have ended right there, but the Army was not confused by facts. They knew they had an easy out.

The Army announced that none of the rifles was really up to par, but that it preferred to stick with its 7.62mm cartridge and try to correct the faults of the T25 rather than go along with either of the competing rifles. A frenzied attempt to save the T25 followed. Many modifications of it were made up and test fired, but it was no go. What the Army did then was to take the T20s (the automatic M1s) out of the storeroom and rework them into a ‘new’ rifle called the T44 – which is now in service as the M14. That this rifle had been shelved five years earlier for ‘a more radical and comprehensive solution’ seemed to trouble no one.

The strangest part of the revival, however, was that the Ordnance designers insisted on transferring the gas system from the unsuccessful T25 to the well-performing T20. This gas system, unlike the simple loose-fitting piston and cylinder of the M1 Garand, uses a special headed piston that closed off the gas port like a sliding valve in an engine. It was invented in 1921 by J.C. White of Boston. White claimed that his design allowed the powder gas to expand slowly and operate the action softly. His idea was rejected by the Army in 1930, but bobbed up again 20 years later. Why the White action returned is hard to explain though the official reason for it is the same one given by its inventor back in the 1930s. But John Garand says flatly: ‘The sliding valve is bunk. I tested it and it doesn’t work the way they think.’ If you ask him why the Army used it anyway he says that ‘somebody’ has been trying to sell the White gas system in Washington for years and that ‘somebody’ in the Pentagon likes it. He refuses to name names but does say that tests on the gas system were made by outside firms which reported what the Ordnance people wanted to hear, rather than what happened. After that shocker, Garand, who spent nearly 40 years working for the Army, says: ‘That’s bad business, but that’s the way things are.’
If you keep this small sample of military objectivity in mind, the rest of what happened in the great M14 rifle snafu will be less surprising.

Even if the White gas system worked as the Army claims, it’s still difficult to make and possibly to use. The manufacturing problem comes from the close tolerances the system needs to function. They’re on the order of seven times as close as the system in the M1. The maximum distance between the M1 piston and cylinder is about three and a half thousandths of an inch; on the M14 it’s about half of one-thousandths. This is a little like trying to make automobile pistols fit without rings. On a piece of machinery like a rifle this tightness invites trouble.
Some people in the Army are aBut to return to how we got into the mess. If the Army thought that rejecting the EM2 and the FN rifles because were very much mistaken. What happened was that the British and NATO finally agreed to adopt our 7.62mm round under a gentleman’s agreement that we would adopt one of NATO rifles. Then the British dropped the EM2 in favor of the FN rifle and the Belgian appeared on our doorstep and offered it to us. Unable to resist anymore because of the cartridge, the Army had to take NATO’s most popular rifle seriously. So the testing began, but before it was over the Army had reason to wish it had never started. As one high ranking Ordnance officer said later: ‘We never thought it would do very well, so we did not keep the FN out of the tests.’
At first it seemed that this presumption was justified. The Belgian rifle, renamed the T48 for test purposes, performed very well against our own T44, which was of course the wartime T20 with the White gas system. But these were only the preliminaries. After that it really began to get rough.

Five hundred FN rifles were made up in this country by Harrington & Richardson, Inc. of Worcester, Massachusetts. An equal number of T44s was completed by Springfield Armory to see if they would perform well when made by mass production methods. The test results were the same. Both rifles functioned properly – though the Belgian gun was produced by a company that had never seen it before while the T44s were turned out by the factory where the rifle was invented. Then several thousand rifles of each design were obtained and samples sent to the service schools and combat units in the Arctic, the tropics and all parts of the United States. The testing went on winter and summer in rain, sand, snow and mud – for five whole years.

Through it all the contestants see-sawed. First the FN rifle would be ahead, then the T44. And all the time Springfield Armory was turning out new modifications and changes to make the T44 perform better. In the combat-course test, both rifles were dunked bodily into a bath of mud and then fired. Reluctantly, the Army had to admit that the FN rifle passed the mud test while the T44 flunked. But the day was saved when it was decided that GIs ought to be able to load either rifle from the top with ammunition in clips. The FN had a sliding breech cover designed to prevent mud from fouling up the action, but it interfered with top loading. So off came the breech cover. The Army sighed with relief when jammed up the unprotected FN rifle receiver too. Then there were the Arctic tests in snow and extreme cold. In the winter of 1953-54 both rifles had defects, but the FN appeared to have more of them than the T44. The following winter both rifles were found suitable for Arctic use. But when the last round was fired – after five years and $4,052,000 had been spent – the T44 won out, as everyone around the Pentagon knew it would from the start.

The T44 won on points that had nothing to do with performance. On May 1, 1957, Army Secretary of Wilbur Brucker said that both the FN and the T44 were found suitable for use by the Army. However, the T44 was selected for adoption because it was one pound lighter and considered better suited for mass production and training. All three reasons have since turned out to be wrong. Modifications have added a pound of weight to the rifle. Mass production has been an expensive nightmare. And training is more difficult than with the M1.

Criticism of the M14 snafu comes from all sides. One expert whose own experience. And Johnson is rather sarcastic about the M14. He agrees with old rival John Garand – they’ve been friends since 1940 – though he’s even more outspoken. Noting published excuses that any new weapon has to go through a period of debugging, Johnson points out rather acidly that the M14 is hardly new. The M14 uses John Garand breech lock, the BAR-type magazine and the White gas action, all invented 30 to 40 years ago. And, he adds, the rifle has been around at least 15 years. Johnson blames an ‘unsound’ gas system for the M14 production difficulties.

Though Johnson has made a formal proposal to the Pentagon to redesign the M14, there has been no reply and Johnson doesn’t really expect one. He does think, however, that the M14 may be ‘saved’ by a series of unannounced changes – which seem to be going on already. But changed or not, Johnson feels the M14 is very little if any improvement over the M1 Garand considering all the years and millions squandered on it.

What happened to the M14 after it was adopted is a tale of snafus even worse than those of the development period. Mass production of it has been a long and rocky road. The British, Canadians, Australians, Belgians and Latin nations who adopted the FN rifle had no trouble at all getting equipped. In fact the FN is being advertised for sale to commercial markets all over the world but no one has appeared in line to ask for the M14. The delays in M14 procurement came from the start. None were even ordered for 11 months after the rifle was officially adopted in mid-1957, and the first few Armory produced rifles did not come off the line until the fall of 1959. In fact, ordering the M14 into production at all was probably a result of the 1958 Lebanon crisis. At that time a congressman stung the Pentagon with the information that our Marines were landing with World War II Garand rifles while the Israelis carried FNs and the Arabs were well supplied with new Russian automatics.

So in the spring of 1959 the Army started production at Springfield and gave out contracts to Harrington & Richardson and the Winchester-Western Division of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., at New Haven, Connecticut, for the first 85,000 M14s. These first commercial orders called for a price of $68.75 per rifle – though the Springfield Armory price for M14s was $155.98 at the time. The abnormally low civilian quote may have been motivated by a gamble for new business as old as the arms game – get the contract at any price and run the risk of a loss, hoping you can negotiate upward with design changes. If this was the idea, it worked beautifully. Early this year (1963) the Army admitted that the average price for M14s in 1960 was $150.75, and in 1961, $130.61. The present cost is budgeted at $100 each, but is actually running about $126. These prices are without slings, bayonets or spare parts.

Volume production on the M14 did not begin until late 1960 and during that year the Ordnance Department and the commercial manufacturers were swearing at each other almost daily over prices, specifications changes and schedules. By early 1961 reports that production was 60 percent behind schedule and that some M14s had blown up in training reached Congressional ears. The hearings on military appropriations that spring were rather tense for the Ordnance In reference to rumors that some M14s had blown up, the general was asked if this had happened to three rifles. He answered that none had blown. The congressman smiled and then asked if it had happened to two M14s. The general said the number was zero. Again the congressman pressed Hinrichs if perhaps only one rifle had exploded, but the general stuck to his story. Finally, he was allowed to make a statement. ‘We do not consider that any of the M14 rifles actually blew up,’ Hinrichs said. ‘However, in December, 1960, there were several bolts in rifles which malfunctioned at Fort Benning….’

He went on to say that the receivers had cracked in firing and that this had been traced to a commercial source supplying steel that was not up to specifications. Whether anyone was hurt by these ‘non-explosions’ was not explored.

Later in 1961 persistent reports of delays and defects in the M14 program prompted a special subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee to get into the act. They went into the production history of the M14 project quite thoroughly, taking testimony from everyone involved. In view of the Army’s insistence that the rifle was particularly adapted to mass production, what Harrington & Richardson had to say is enlightening. Blamed by the Army for goofing on the heat treatment of bolts and receivers due to inadequate quality control. H&R fired back that the tolerance requirements ‘were not compatible with mass-production methods.’ The company also blamed the Army for sending them inaccurate gauges and delivering them late.
Then it was Winchester’s turn. It charged the Army with upgrading its requirements and inspection standards after finding performance problems in its original design standards.
In short, the tolerances on the M14 have to be almost impossibly tight or the rifle won’t work. Can you imagine what would happen in the hurried atmosphere of wartime production? Winchester also proved to be non-machinable at high production rates, and much time was lost while the Army decided on another steel for the job. The slowness of getting approvals for the simpler design or manufacturing change was mentioned by both companies as a major problem. What all of this demonstrates is that Government arsenals are just not set up for mass production. It also shows that a rifle made in a tool room is not necessarily going to produce in the same way on an automated assembly line. It should be remembered, of course, that mass-production capability was one of the reasons the Army said it liked the M14 in the first place.

Right now all seems to be well between the Army and the two outside M14 producers. The rifle is coming off the assembly line in quantity, though it’s not really the same weapon that was tested and adopted so long ago. Ordnance sources admit that more than 100 design changes have been made though they claim most of them are minor, such as a different buttplate and new handguard.
However, the Army itself is revealing for more basic changes by sending out M14 poop sheets carrying two sets of specifications – one of them crossed out. The charges are interesting. The M14 has gained in weight from 8.7 to 9.5 pounds and grown in length by an eight of an inch. At the same time its maximum range has dropped from 4,200 yards to 3,500 and the cyclic rate of automatic fire from 750 rounds per minute to 715.

Last fall the Army announced that a competition would be held to choose a third commercial producer of the M14 and unwittingly kicked another hornet’s nest. When the announcement was made almost a hundred companies all over the country were said to be scrambling for the contract, but after the specifications were issued less than 40 qualified. When bidding time came only 11 companies threw in prop.’

Among those companies that did bid to build 100,000 M14s were: Ford, Chrysler, Studebaker, Remington, Frigidaire Division of GM, Vinco, West Virginia Ordnance, Herz-Chambers Corp., and Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge. Thompson-Ramo won with a bid of $15,076,234 or $150.76 each – though West Virginia Ordnance had bid $12,649.33 or $126.40 apiece. The Army made the award by ‘evaluating’ Thompson-Ramo’s bid down to $10,092,523 – $100.92 per M14 – which, of course, made it low bidder. What happened was TRW bid $8,554,070 for the 100,000 rifles or $85.54 each and signed a second contract for $6,522,164 in tools and equipment. Some of this was rehabilitation of company machinery but most of it was new stuff to be acquired for the Government.

Since that time other mathematical exercises have been brought out to show that the Thompson-Ramo M14s will cost $104.75 apiece – a further evaluation in a different direction. But the Army also admits that the company hasn’t made any M14s yet so no one really knows what they’re going to cost.

And now the Army has its favorite rifle and most of the hubbub has ended we come to the most amazing part of all: nine out of 10 M14s issued today are set to fire only semi-automatic.
After nearly 20 years of searching for an automatic replacement for the M1 the Army is using most of its new M14s to fill the same role as the M1 in the same way. Present policy is to issue only two full-automatic M14s to an Infantry squad – and hand out the rest without a selector switch on them. Marine General Megee thinks this policy is a sop to practicality. ‘Who is going to carry the ammo for full-auto fire?’ he asks. And Army statements seem to bear out his reasoning. It’s emphasized that an M14 rifleman can deliver at least 30 aimed shots per minute, which the Army says is more destructive and demoralizing to the enemy than the spray type of fire of the submachine gun, to say nothing of the waste of ammunition.

In other words, the Army has returned to the philosophy it used to defend the M1 in Korea – when the Chinese were using burp guns and Russian automatic rifles. It said then that the M1 could be fired as fast as was necessary and that aimed fire is more effective in terms of hits than hard-to-control full-auto bullet spraying. This makes sense, but it leaves a big question unanswered: Why didn’t they just stick with the Garand and put a 20-shot magazine on it?

At the moment, the Marine Corps has equipped most its combat units with M14s. But the Corps is continuing to do recruit training with the old reliable M1 rifle. This is said to be an economy move to use up present stocks of .30-06 ammunition and is scheduled to continue until 1965. This may be the only reason. But some people who have used the M14 say it’s also a hard rifle on which to train new shooters – especially when fired full automatic. With a conventional stock and no compensator or muzzle brake, the rifle is difficult to control. This, as well as the Army’s philosophy on aimed fire, may be back of the policy of issuing most M14s without selector switches. But don’t despair. If you get your hands on a semi-automatic M14 remember that company commanders are supposed to carry extra switches with them in case of an enemy charge. This ought to work out just dandy – especially on dark nights.

“Stoner/AR system is junk, it craps where it eats, ammo-sensitive, maintenance sensitive.”

On the whole, no.

This call comes from a fan of the classic firearm: the M1 Garand, the M1903A3, Enfield, M1 Carbine, M92/M94/M336 lever guns. In spite of that predilection, my first choice for defense/LE/mil-type applications is one or another variation of Stoner’s AR.

It’s the most common rifle in CONUS, with widely available parts and ammunition — ammunition that’s current is loaded primarily for that application (Stoner-type guns). It’s light, more accurate than it needs to be, has superior ergonomics to any other rifle in history, the recoil is very light, and it hits as hard as it needs to especially in the US-domestic arena. As to maintenance, Pat Rogers has run various make ARs in his schools, kept good round counts, with no cleaning. Lubrication is a must. Guns are routinely going over 20,000 rounds while in the rotation. And he’s not the only one keeping track of such things.

The AK-47 is a select-fire, magazine-fed rifle compatible with 7.62x39mm cartridge It is air-cooled and long-stroke-piston gas-operated with a rotating bolt. Designed to be a simple, reliable automatic rifle that could be manufactured quickly and cheaply, it utilized mass production methods.
The 7.62x39mm cartridge lends the AK-47 more weight and greater penetration when compared to the M16.

The M16 is a direct impingement or a rotating bolt rifle. This design makes its sensitive to the residue left by propellant. If only 100-200 shots are fired M16 is so fucked up by the residue left by the propellant that it may jam because of that. In the heat of the battle cleaning is often not possible.

The AK-47’s magazine features a pronounced curve that allows it to smoothly feed ammunition into the chamber. It has a heavy steel construction with “feed lips” to make it resistant to damage.

As the M16’s magazine was designed to be more lightweight and less durable, it is made of pressed/stamped aluminum, and its feed lips are much more weaker than the AK-47’s and as a result of that M16 has malfunctions or stoppages very often.

The safety (selector) of an AK-47 is designed to be easily hit with the index finger while the middle finger remains on the trigger. Magazines are inserted and removed by a simple rocking motion. The AK-47 is extremely friendly to left handed users in terms of controls and ejection.

The M16’s safety (selector) switch is easily manipulated without losing sight picture. Its smaller size makes it more difficult to use under stress. The M16 is unfriendly to left handed users both in terms of controls and in terms of shell ejection.

The AK-47 is renowned for its ruggedness and reliability. It is designed in a way that even untrained individuals can use it. It is also built with generous clearances, which enable it to function in dirty enviroments with minimal maintenance. These clearances enhance AK’s reliability. In the close-combat it is the reliability that makes the difference between life and death (like the duels in the wild west). The jammings and stoppages of M16 are fatal.

In Vietnam M16 was extremely unreliable. Still M16 has the reputation to be rather unreliable. The M16’s design requires copious and frequent use of compatible lubricants on its receiver, and lack of lubrication is the most common cause of stoppages or jams. In Alaska and Siberia oil is GLUE at minus 50 degree Celsius. Snow and ice makes M16 even more vulnerable to jammings and stoppages in such a low temperatures. In Vietnam M16 killed many US soldiers because of constant jammings and stoppages. Cleaning was not possible in the heat of the battle.

The AK-47 is a select-fire, magazine-fed rifle compatible with 7.62x39mm cartridge It is air-cooled and long-stroke-piston gas-operated with a rotating bolt. Designed to be a simple, reliable automatic rifle that could be manufactured quickly and cheaply, it utilized mass production methods.
The 7.62x39mm cartridge lends the AK-47 more weight and greater penetration when compared to the M16.
The M16 is a direct impingement or a rotating bolt rifle. This design makes its sensitive to the residue left by propellant. If only 100-200 shots are fired M16 is so fucked up by the residue left by the propellant that it may jam because of that. In the heat of the battle cleaning is often not possible.
The AK-47’s magazine features a pronounced curve that allows it to smoothly feed ammunition into the chamber. It has a heavy steel construction with “feed lips” to make it resistant to damage.
As the M16’s magazine was designed to be more lightweight and less durable, it is made of pressed/stamped aluminum, and its feed lips are much more weaker than the AK-47’s and as a result of that M16 has malfunctions or stoppages very often.
The safety (selector) of an AK-47 is designed to be easily hit with the index finger while the middle finger remains on the trigger. Magazines are inserted and removed by a simple rocking motion. The AK-47 is extremely friendly to left handed users in terms of controls and ejection.
The M16’s safety (selector) switch is easily manipulated without losing sight picture. Its smaller size makes it more difficult to use under stress. The M16 is unfriendly to left handed users both in terms of controls and in terms of shell ejection.
The AK-47 is renowned for its ruggedness and reliability. It is designed in a way that even untrained individuals can use it. It is also built with generous clearances, which enable it to function in dirty enviroments with minimal maintenance. These clearances enhance AK’s reliability. In the close-combat it is the reliability that makes the difference between life and death. The jammings and stoppages of M16 are fatal.
In Vietnam M16 was extremely unreliable. Still M16 has the reputation to be rather unreliable. The M16’s design requires copious and frequent use of compatible lubricants on its receiver, and lack of lubrication is the most common cause of stoppages or jams. In Alaska and Siberia oil is like GLUE at minus 50 degree Celsius. Snow and ice makes M16 even more vulnerable to jammings and stoppages in such a low temperature. In Vietnam M16 killed many US soldiers because of constant jammings and stoppages. Cleaning was not possible in the heat of the battle.
By using M16 you have really FUCKED UP.

Ah, the AK47. Beloved by people who want a rifle that holds the same number of rounds as an AR15, but don’t want an AR15 despite it having superior ergonomics, sights, and accuracy.

The real legacy of the AK is that it’s a rifle designed to be used by literally the dumbest human beings on the planet, and in that role it excels. But…it’s not really a very good rifle. Its legendary reputation for reliability is mostly grounded in the same ‘Nam era war stories that make people think that M16s aren’t reliable. It’s earned this legendary reputation for mechanical reliability…which turns out to pretty much be just that, a legend.

But the internet will tell you forever that “nothing can jam an AK”…until one does malfunction, then they’ll say “well that was a Bulgarian AK, not a true Russian model so it’s inferior garbage.” Whatever you say.

Go rewatch Red Dawn (the good one) and tell your AK that it’s “just as good” as an AR15. If you say it enough, maybe you’ll start believing it.

Another field test of the AR reliability, essentially an over the beach test from hell. Ironically, the first reliability test ever performed on an AK was dragging it seven kilometers behind a truck from the factory to the test range- some the AR cannot do.

Here’s another field test proving again that the AR is merely a nice range toy at best. While it runs fine initially after getting dunked into some muddy swamp water, it chokes the second any sand gets into the action- even just a minor amount of sand from what the Survival Blog guys were saying. Same as what Military Arms Channel found in the link I provided above.

FYI. that 9000 round derp torture test of the KAC AR doesn’t mean anything, it was under range conditions. The rifle should run minimum 20K without stoppage or cleaning in such conditions. Yugoslavians tested the M70 to 89K rounds without stoppage and the Bulgarians tortured a milled 47 to over 300K rounds. Course by then the barrels would be smoothbores but the point remains the same- the AK is the superior rifle for a combat arm and the AR is a nice accurate range toy to impress your bench rest shooting buddies.

Actually the tests were done to see just how reliable the AK really is. However for practical accuracy MAC does a nice comparison video between a Colt M4 and a Russian 74. The Colt gets about 2MOA at 100 yards using newly manufacturered M855 while at that same distance the Russian Izhvesk 74 gets 3MOA using military surplus 7n6 ammo from the 1980’s.

So while the AR might offer a slight edge in accuracy, the trade off for most people isn’t worth it when you consider that the M16/AR shit where it eats weapon system- is the least reliable modern military arm in existance.

>> The Colt gets about 2MOA at 100 yards using newly manufacturered M855 while at that same distance the Russian Izhvesk 74 gets 3MOA using military surplus 7n6 ammo from the 1980’s.

That’s about the difference I’ve seen given a quality, well-built Kalashnikov and rack grade issue M16s. The AR-15 can an honest 1MOA or better performer but not in as-issue rifles. Inside 200 yards there is little practical difference in precision for field shooting on silhouette-size targets for even competent marksmen.

>> the trade off for most people isn’t worth it when you consider that … most people shoot like shit.

FIFY

Weapon effectiveness is more dependent on shooter skill. A competent shooter will handle both well. And they’ll keep it running just fine with minimal maintenance.

Please convince the US Department of Defense to replace the M16/M4 with Kalashnikovs.

I’ll get all the training missions with the Army Reserve Marksmanship Program I can handle helping conduct NET (New Equipment Training) classes and get to work with Soldiers and units that might not otherwise request support from our Marksmanship Program.

Military team gunsmiths will work diligently to get the Kalashnikov tweaked into a 600 yard Across The Course rifle. I’d wish them luck, however, many people didn’t think the AR-15 could compete ATC yet today it dominates Service Rifle.

I’ll get plenty of freelance writing assignments to publish articles about this

There will be a slew of write ups from gunsmiths for American Gunsmith(the magazine I edit for AG Media.)

Then I’ll thank you for keeping me busy with new, paying work I’ll enjoy doing.

Seriously, convince Congress and the DoD. Telling me about it on my silly little website won’t do you any good. Besides, I like AK-series rifles just fine. I only shoot the M16/AR-15 because they are issue and I’m required to shoot issue firearms at most competitions I compete. Force us all to change to Kalashnikovs, I don’t care. The playing field is just as level and the competition will be just as challenging.

Unfortunately, such a “fix” solves nothing. Poor shooters will continue to shoot poorly. Improper maintenance and a lack of equipment understanding will still induce malfunctions. At the end of the day, both rifles are manufactured, gas-operated, chemically-operated, self-loading projectile launchers. Only a fool believes one is magically more capable than the other.

Of course it won’t. My friend went to the Radom factory in Poland as he was doing business with them to assist with importing semi auto military firearms. Said they had Beryl 96 5.56NATO test rifles with over 50K rounds through them that still were able to stay within 3MOA. I think that’s pretty amazing considering but also has a lot do with the quality of the barrels. I think they are mandrel hammer forged like all AK barrels but also nitrided from what I remember. The nitriding makes the barrels more accurate since chrome can vary upon thickness as it is poured through the bore.

John from Ballistic Radio, with the help of Knight’s Armament and Freedom Munitions decided to show you how not true that was, so he shot 15,000 rounds through an AR15 without cleaning it, then dumped an entire bag of sand on it.

Another video after showing much stuff the ejection port cover actually lets get in the gun.

“Ran perfectly, and I was trying to make it choke. Shot in very dusty range conditions, asymmetric prone with the ejection port down, lots of dust and sand floating around due to muzzle blast, various mags including old GI issue, several different types of ammo including under-powered (ammo), Wolf, Tula and PMC, hot 5.56 spec M193 and M855, and Hornady’s Custom SP load for KHP (Kansas Highway Patrol). The crudded up ejection port pic was after I picked up a handful of sand and gravel, dumped it onto the closed bolt/ejection port, then did a 30 round mag dump followed by a mag of five round NSRs. It took five loads of dirt and gravel over the (in-battery) carbine. Ran like a top, holds zero (optic).”

No one drops their AR in sand with the dust port closed which is typically all these videos show since everyone knows the M16 only works as a closed system. Your second video shows some minor sand that worked itself into the action despite being all closed up but again- with everything closed up those particles are minor. I’ve already posted videos of open ports getting sand through them- locks up the weapon entirely. Again, the AR is a nice range toy or good weapon for a well supported force complete with armorers and a supply chain. It is not a good SHTF weapon.

Show me a video of an AR that has the ejection port open, bolt closed and then sand dumped over it- it would fail every time just as the videos I posted above have shown.

The AR doesn’t get sand in it. You filled the AK till capacity. Then say, “Look how much better the AR is!” Fn’ retarded dude. The AK is ten times the rifle the AR is. But my AR has a selector, who fn’ cares- it’s weak. It can barely function without environment introduced, it fails EVERY time it is compromised. The AK ceased to function ONLY because you filled it with sand, pop the topcover, turn it over, and it runs. Amazing reliability from such an old design.

The first test on an AK for reliability was dragging it 7 kilometers to the range by a chain behind a truck. The first AR test for reliability was some drunk General shooting watermelons- FAIL.

Just pour sand through it, shake it out and then try to run your prissy AR, it will choke like a whore at a donkey show. The AK, she’s a gypsy slut and can take anything.

Not same with the AK, not at all, your video proves absolutely nothing since you completely filled the AK receiver with sand but had the bolt closed so that hardly any sand could get into the AR. I PROVED to you what happens when a minor amount of sand gets into an AR action. The AK didn’t “choke”, you basically filled it with so much sand that the hammer couldn’t hardly even move. Your AR would choke with a thimble full of sand.

Not arguing, I’m selling my AR’s off, they are garbage. I convinced myself in this process that I honestly don’t want to own them anymore and have no idea why I even own them to begin with. You put together a specially crafted video to show just how “reliable” the AR is but in reality, you simply filled the AK with the sand and left the bolt shut on the AR- not even remotely the same thing. I have never found the AR to be reliable in the past two decades of ownership, not with tens of thousands of rounds downrange.

If the test indicates the AR-15 is good or that the AK isn’t perfect, the test is “Fn’ retarded dude.”

>> The first test on an AK for reliability was to the range by a chain behind a truck.

The first tests scrapped the first production runs of the AK before they ever left the factory. Lucky for Kalashnikov his design had over a decade of debugging before being seriously fielded. Hence the myth that lingers among non-shooters today.

>> I have never found the AR to be reliable in the past two decades of ownership,

Many lower skilled personnel not fully understanding their equipment have problems.

I was mobilized from 2003-2009 and conducted small arms training for over 30,000 deploying Soldiers. Watching tens of thousands of M16/M4-series rifles shoot millions of rounds with near-perfect reliability is more experience than a lone, casual plinker/gunowner randomly posting anonymously on the Internet.

The very few problems encountered were maintenance problems due to excess and improper cleaning induced by Soldiers or by bad advice from their leadership and peers. Provided they caused no actual damage, the fix was accomplished in a few minutes.

Most issue weapons are damaged or rendered unreliable by poor maintenance, usually bad advice from Drill Sergeants and other novice-level shooters instead of following simple instructions from the TM or ArmaLite. I’ve verified this with personnel involved with small arms at TACOM (https://www.tacom.army.mil)

My personal AR-15s, Army issue and civilian built, have had flawless reliability for over a decade. That’s been the experience of every skilled shooter I know, including those with combat service overseas.

I’ve never met a skilled marksman competing with the AR-15 or in the military that disliked the design or felt it was unreliable.

If you knew what you were looking at you’d know that rifle wasn’t factory built to begin with. It’s been heavily modified, if not outright being a Pakistani made rifle. However, that was a KB caused by an over charged round which will do the same to an AK as it does to a Garand, an AR, S&W revolver, you name it.

>> If you knew what you were looking at you’d know that rifle wasn’t factory built to begin with

If you knew what you were looking at you’d know that ANY individual mechanical device that is improperly constructed, maintained, or subjected to operator error can malfunction, no matter how reliable the base design happens to be.

Examples of “unreliable” AR-15s are that way due to poor construction, maintenance, ammunition, or operator error. Just like examples of “unreliable” Kalashnikovs are due to poor construction, maintenance, ammunition, or operator error.

>> …that was a KB caused by an over charged round which will do the same to an AK as it does to a Garand, an AR, S&W revolver, you name it.

Yes. Any firearm fed poor ammunition will have problems. Even the AK-47.

in Vietnam M16 jammed with catastrophical results. Look at that fucking mess in Vietnam. M16 demonstrated clearly its unreliability
because of following reasons.

1. M16 is very sensitive to the residue left by propellant bacause it doesn´t have a gas piston sytem. That kind of problem is absent in AK-47.

2. M16 doesn´t tolerate poor quality ammo (but AK-47 does well).

3. M16 needs a fucking lot of cleaning and oiling to work properly.

4. M16 cannot acommodate sand, mud and snow because of too tight tolerances. At Prudhoe Bay in Alaska you need more realiability in winter at minus 50 degree Celsius.

5. M16 has too many too small moving parts that are easily lost in sand or in snow if the cleaning is interrupted by an enemy ambush or by an enemy artillery barrage.

6. The magazines of M16 are weak of their construction. They don´t feed as reliably as AK-47.

7. M16 is extremely unfredly to left had users (in other words it is fucking).

8. Long barrel M16 is long and bulky compared to AK-47 (especially inside armoured cars)

8. M16 is more expensive to produce and maintain comared to AK-47.

9. 5,56 is weak. It cannot put down a 1800 pound polar bears hanging around at Nome or at Prudhoe Bay in Alaska in Winter (at -50 Celsius) because of a weak cartrige and unreliable construction. The result of this is that the polar bear can rip you into pieces before you can clean you unreliable weapon.
Winter-War reality in 1939-1940 is also illustrated in the last video. That kind of reality US Army must face when dealing with the Russian Army in Alaska

I have no idea why people in Finland wouldn’t like the M16. I own several AR’s and twice as many AK’s. The AK is more reliable overall but is not as ergonomic so it is a trade off that most accept when running an AK. Both will kill you dead especially in the hands of a skilled marksman.

One of the more interesting aspects of owning Century Arms products is that might get one of their “surprise” models which spontaneously self-disassembles.

The owner sent the rifle (pieces) back to Century, who confirmed is was a headspacing issue, which sadly seems to be a common problem with some of the firearms they import.

Note: Kalashnikovs are based on a solid design and normally reliable, but a mistake in manufacture, low quality ammo or magazines, or poor operator maintenance can render any firearm inoperable. They’re all mechanical devices and there is no magic inherent in any of them.

Except one issue here, Century never imported an AK 74 except for the Romanian SAR 2. The AK 74 in the video is a parts kit built onto a US receiver with US internals, US cheap rivets and worse- a US non mil spec barrel. Basically, they are so badly constructed that anyone who buys AK’s stays away from them. They are the equivalent of a Hessee AR15.

Mr. Putin has made a decision to re-capture Alaska. According to Vladimir Putin it was illegal to sell Alaska to the United States of America. In the future Putin will use the same tactics like in the east of Ukraine and in Krim. Russia will set up a separatist movement in Alaska, which will be helped by russian soldiers dressed in separatist uniforms. If this is not good enough the ruskies will come over the Bering strait to liberate what was once a part of Russian empire. Alaska will be Mr. Putins next target in the future if US do not do anything to stop him in Ukraina. Encouraged by the passivity of the US and above all the weak president Barack Obama all that will come true. M16 do not work reliable in the coldness of Alaska ( -56 F) because its structure makes it so sensitive to the residue left by propellant. Snow and coldness make things even worse. AK-47 and AK-74 work better in Alaska winter, and they are not sensitive to the propellant because of the gas-piston system and they tolerate snow, mud and coldness much better than the fucking unreliable M16.

See in this following video how the finnish army deals with “the ruskies” at minus 50 degree Celsius in Lappland.

Mr. Putin has made a decision to re-capture Alaska. According to Vladimir Putin it was illegal to sell Alaska to the United States of America. In the future Putin will use the same tactics like in the east of Ukraine and in Krim. Russia will set up a separatist movement in Alaska, which will be helped by russian soldiers dressed in separatist uniforms. If this is not good enough the ruskies will come over the Bering strait to liberate what was once a part of Russian empire. Alaska will be Mr. Putins next target in the future if US do not do anything to stop him in Ukraina. Encouraged by the passivity of the US and above all the weak president Barack Obama all that will come true. M16 do not work reliable in the coldness of Alaska ( -56 F) because its structure makes it so sensitive to the residue left by propellant. Snow and coldness make things even worse. AK-47 and AK-74 work better in Alaska winter, and they are not sensitive to the propellant because of the gas-piston system and they tolerate snow, mud and coldness much better than the fucking unreliable M16.

See in this following video how the finnish army deals with “the ruskies” at minus 50 degree Celsius in Lappland.

Mr. Vladimir Putin´s mission is to restore the Russian Empire. He will not give up his goal, until Mr. Putin is stopped. USA must give modern arms (anti-tank, fire guidance radars, satellite images) to Ukraine. Fail to do this by passive president Barack Obama only encourages Mr. Putin to spread his campaign to the Baltic States after Mr. Putin has managed to occupy the rest of Ukraine by using the Donetsk liberation army. It is a puppet army set up by the KGB to occupy and do away the current pro western Ukraine government.

Sadly Alaska is difficult to defend. Vietnam War showed that M16 is a fucking unreliable gun. Its structure (no gas piston) makes it very sensiteve to the residue left by propellant. Yes, that is true. One has to be in the process of cleaning the gun all the time. Sand, mud, frost and snow makes things even worse because of the too tight tolerances of M16. This is never the case with AK because of better reliability..

Also too many small moving parts of M16 are easily lost in the sand and snow if the cleaning is interrupted by ambush or incoming shells. The magazines of M16 are somewhat weak of their construction. M16 is extremely unfrendly to left hand users. M16 will not work in Alaska at minus 56 F. The plastic parts of M16 are as brittle as glass at minus 56 F.

AK-47, AK-74, RK-62, RK-95 work very well at minus 56 F. It is sad that US Army is no match to the Nordic Countries as to Winter Warfare (e.g. in Alaska). They can never win a gold medal in olympic skiing, but Russia and the Nordic Countries can.

Just an average guy here. Not claiming to know anything. Many claim that the AK runs great even when filthy. Many claim that the AR chokes when it get filthy. OK, fine. Run your AK fine when filthy. Regarding a filthy AR, the design makes it incredibly easy to swap out the bolt carrier group, and maybe the quick use of a upper brush to clean out the chamber, Then, when your AK continues to run filthy, the AR will continue to run clean. During the bolt change out, I will protect myself with sidearm until newly clean AR is up and running. Problem solved.

The whole mindset that if you fail to maintain the weapon then you deserve to die is faulty. What happens if you are in a situation where you can’t maintain the weapon? Sometimes a weapon needs to operate in less than ideal conditions.

I think the M16 DI system is outdated, it will be eventually replaced by some sort of piston system. The entire concept of dumping carbon directly into the action is probably not the best for reliability as has been shown over the years. Why we are the only country fielding a DI weapon system is likely due to politics and the entire dumbass concept of “it works fine, just maintain it better”.

Well, I have never heard of anyone else suggesting carrying an extra AR bolt and when and if the already in place bolt gets clogged with debris, simply and easily and quickly swapping the clean bolt for the dirty bolt, maybe with a quick swab of a chamber/upper cleaning brush. But if I was going into combat I would probably do it. I don’t know if that qualifies as “weapons maintance.” Heck, maybe even have manufacturers produce two AR bolts. One with the mil-spic tolerance and the other with a looser tolerance for when the environment gets terribly unfriendly for the AR mil-spec bolt (sand, extreme cold, ice, long time in field and unable to do extensive cleaning, etc.)

>> Regarding a filthy AR, the design makes it incredibly easy to swap out the bolt carrier group, and maybe the quick use of a upper brush to clean out the chamber… During the bolt change out, I will protect myself with sidearm until newly clean AR is up and running.

If this (unnecessary) procedure is a “fix” for AR-15 designs, shouldn’t it also be used with all gas-operated firearms?

All gas-operated firearms are, by definition, using gas pressure from the fired cartridge for operation and the fouling from the burning propellant that created this gas pressure will deposit somewhere. That “somewhere” will concentrate on the point it seals, typically a piston whether it is an external type (such as the Kalashnikov) or internal design (Stoner’s AR-15.) Excessive fouling at that spot regardless of design will cause the mechanism to cease function. That’s why many gas-operated firearms have scraper tools to perform maintenance to prevent this from happening.

I’ve had the same rack-grade M16A2 and M16A4 since 2005, using the same rifles for every military competition (All Army, AFSAM, etc.) and training event I’ve done. In that time, despite shooting much more ball ammo than most Soldiers and Marines, I have removed the bolt from the carrier for cleaning less than a dozen times total, perhaps once per year or so. My maintenance procedure is a quick disassembly after clearing it, swab the bore and chamber with a Bore Snake, wipe down the carrier and inside the receiver, relube (making sure I get a drop or two inside the carrier behind the gas rings on the bolt/piston) and reassemble. The entire procedure takes less time than flossing and brushing your teeth. About once a year I use a good bore solvent and brush in the barrel, and fully disassemble (as per the TM -10 procedures) to clean the bolt, carrier, etc.

I have not had a single malfunction with either rifle in this ten year span. Not one. With rare exception, problematic AR-15s that weren’t obviously broken (and every mechanical device will eventually break) was cause to excessive scraping and cleaning, with the parts worn out due to an overzealous Soldier following what his idiot drill sergeant told him.https://firearmusernetwork.com/2008/12/31/moron-cleaning-guns-maintain/

Once again, the M16 is not DI (Direct Impingement), it uses an internal piston. Go read Stoner’s original patent where this is specifically addressed. Also, go review actual DI designs to observe the differences.

>> it will be eventually replaced by some sort of piston system.

Due to marketing hype and unknowledgeable gun owners demanding a “fix” for nonexistent problems, this is possible. I offer you as Exhibit A.

The “problem” with the AR-15 is due it being fielded before being fully tested and idiot gun owners regurgitating these issues that have been fixed for a half century now. The M1, M14, and AK-47 all suffered development problems when first released.

Having a decade to sort things out sure proved helpful. Had the timelines of the release of the AR-15 and AK-47 been reversed, the AK-47 would today be considered the unreliable rifle due to Soviet horror stories while the AR-15 with a decade of debugging would be properly credited as the reliable rifle it has since become.

>> Why we are the only country fielding a DI weapon system

80 countries field a variant of the AR-15, with 15 of them being other NATO militaries. It also remains the dominant platform for Service Rifle High Power and 3 Gun/practical competition.

Most of those countries going to M16 variants are going to HK piston 416 variants. Canada uses licensed Diemaco Colt’s is now looking to replace that as well. DI or whatever you want to call it is problematic in less than ideal conditions which the piston variants address that issue. For range use, DI is fine, you just drop the BCG out, lube it, run it some more. However all my friends who served over seas said, that if they didn’t ritualize cleaning even if the weapon was unfired, that they could run into issues because just the environment alone apparently would fill the weapons with a silt like sand from traveling on the roadways.

Both individuals admitted to using Kalashnikov’s as back up weapons in their vehicles and in combat. One a medic, had to run back to the vehicle to get the AK after his M4 malfunctioned in the middle of a firefight. The other, a Marine used an AK for clearing houses on occasions because they were issued the longer M16A4 types which were in his words, were to damn long for CQB type work inside of small mud hut type buildings. He said the open sights and compact platform of the AK proved to be vital in a CQB scenario. Said the AK at close range is a mean weapon and he trusted it but would catch hell if he were caught using one but he did so anyways.

Regarding all gas guns depositing perhaps disabling carbon on the moving parts, there is a whole lot more room in a conventional gas piston system to give plenty of room for that carbon to deposit than there is in the AR receiver and gas key. Plus, surely nobody will claim that heat and carbon is GOOD for helping a gun run. I am not slamming Ar’s as I own several and only one AK. Just saying that carbon deposits and heat are never good for running a gun. It is fine to favor DI AR’s and depend on one then and report perfect running. And I lean towards doing just that. But from an intuitive perspective, I will never feel good with all that carbon and heat being directed in the small 5.56×54 receiver and gas key.

That’s pretty much where I’m at Larry. I know the M16 bolt does have gas ports to release most of that gas during firing it’s just that another good portion of that gas is left within the small area of the receiver itself. It’s also super hot so it kind of works against the lubricant you add to the carrier group. I honestly just wish they’d switch over to pistons and be done with it. I’ve had so many malfunctions over the years on DI AR’s, well maintained DI AR’s- that it kind always led me away from the AR altogether though I still own a few Colt’s for whatever reason. Truthfully I doubt I’d grab an AR if my life depended on it. AK’s for me at least, have been far more reliable which is why I own the 106FR series so I can use the same 5.56NATO domestic ammo.

>> For range use, DI is fine, you just drop the BCG out, lube it, run it some more.

The complaint against the internal piston (“DI”) is the claimed excessive fouling/carbon build up from firing. “The AR-15 craps where it eats” and similar, popular nonsense. This ignores the fact that Stoner’s design works on principles identical to all gas-operated firearms and merely combines multiple functions into single parts, such as the bolt and piston, and carrier and sleeve.

If this were an actual problem, then the AR-15 should be more susceptible to problems during range use where the rifle is fired much more often than in the field. If “DI is fine for range use” where it is being shot more often then this “problem” doesn’t exist.

>> However all my friends who served over seas said…

All those I know say the opposite. Every member of the various U.S. military shooting teams that deployed and saw combat has returned claiming the AR-15 is perfectly serviceable for combat use and they continue to prefer it for competition as well. MSG Robert Kolesar, my former NCOIC and good friend, even published several articles about this in various magazines and websites. (These competitive shooters with combat experience also continue to state that competition shooting yields higher skill levels useful for combat, but that’s another issue.)

Perhaps the difference is that my friends and acquaintances with combat experience overseas were actual, skilled marksmen and knew enough to not do stupid things recommended by drill sergeants and other low-skilled shooters. I’m certain you know people doing something different. Just because a somebody did something stupid in combat and managed to survive doesn’t automatically make that thing a good idea.

>> He said the open sights and compact platform of the AK proved to be vital in a CQB scenario.

Tested how? How much better? Measured how? He has actual numbers measured from range tests? Or is this yet another novice-level shooter making an idiot claim preached from a bar stool and based on nothing.

My one buddy served in the Marine Infantry for four years during the first four years we went into Iraq before being injured and coming home. The other as an officer medic attached to an SF unit with eight tours in Afghanistan. Both used the AK at various times during their time over seas. Neither would say that their M16 types were ultimately reliable, reliable enough is more along the lines of it but both felt the weapons could be more reliable and worse, the weapons did fail in combat even if well maintained only because the environment itself- the dust from the roads, got into all their gear. That’s coming from two different guys, two different branches of services, both frontline combat arms, and in two different theaters of operation.

So there he wuz… Well, crack a PBR and tell us another war story, uncle Yoda!

>> That’s coming from two different guys

Two different, random, anonymous guys? Certainly that trumps the experiences of all the deploying members of the AMU, All Guard, USARCMP, USMC WTB, and other service shooting teams (i.e., troops actually good enough to make a shooting team) and their on-going decades of competitive experience.

I like how your response completely ignores providing any data from the “tests” this fellow allegedly conducted to reach his conclusion.

My friend in the Marine Infantry, was among the front line invading force during the initial capture of Felluja which was the heaviest fighting American forces have seen since the Vietnam War, they took heavy casualties. He said flat out, that at times when clearing houses, he used an AK- said that the M16A4 with the ACOG sight was just to damn long for that kind of role in CQB. If they were kicking in doors or doing house to house searches, he would have his A4 slung and the AK running point. As stated, he knew he would catch hell if caught doing so but he didn’t care and he wasn’t alone as several others apparently did the same. He served four years in Iraq, Marine Infantry.

The other friend not only served as medical officer attached to various SF units in Afghanistan but also a contractor with special operations for several years after doing all kinds of wild stuff. He also used the AK on several occasions, one in particular after his M4 went down right in the middle of an ambush. However he wasn’t new to AK’s, collected them for years prior to going over seas. The one he kept on his vehicle he spent time prior sighting in and maintaining, treating it like he would any other weapon he would take with him. He credits that particular rifle for the reason why he is still here today.

Like I said, two different branches, both front lines, two different theaters- both credit having Kalashnikov variants for serving limited vital roles during their time in service. FYI, the friend that is Marine, when he came home, the first rifle he bought was an AK. He owns a couple of AR’s as in his words for “nostalgia” as he’s setting one up exactly like his issued A4 but probably now has twice that many AK’s in his personal collection.

Thoughts, the M16 is serviceable weapon, but it does have inherent design flaws that at least some companies, HK for example, LWRC as another- is addressing. I think we will see piston fed M16 types as main service weapons within our lifetime.

Just wanted to point this out also because it mirrors what my friend Mr. Marshall had seen during his visits over seas at Kalashnikov production factories. Essentially, the factories were getting over 50K rounds through their rifles without parts replacement. Some, for instance like Radom Arsenal had rifles that had well over 60K rounds through them with the original parts and Bulgaria had examples with even more rounds than that.

So here is the write up. Henderson Defense out of Nevada rents C3 full auto rifles to it’s customers. They are using a broad range of Kalashnikov types along with other traditional rifles, HK, AR etc. The AK rifles on average were getting between 80K to 100K rounds down range out of them before something catastrophic broke on them- usually the front trunnion for the stamped guns. The only other rifle I’ve read about that has achieved that kind of long term use is the Steyr AUG.

“This may sound crazy but it’s fair to say that they finally suffer a catastrophic failure (cracked trunion) at 80,000-100,000 rounds. Also, we have WASR’s that have suffered a catastrophic failure and we just pull out the old trunion and barrel, grab one from a parts kit, re-rivet, re-barrel and get them up and running.”

So if you own AR’s great. Pick up an AK to go with your collection so you have something to pass down to the grandkids that would actually function.

Finally this, the AR is excellent for mounting optics along with keeping iron sights for back up. In addition it has probably the best overall ergonomics of any rifle out there along with parts support that is unmatched anything available within the USA. The parts themselves are drop in compatible and don’t require much in the way of actual gunsmithing to install. The rifle because of it’s unique centerline driven gas system is exceptionally accurate. The weapon itself serves well in a variety of climates and conditions as long as it is maintained.

The only drawbacks I can see compared to owning HK’s, AUG’s, AK’s etc. is that the AR lacks room around the carrier and trigger components for debris- simply it is made to be an accurate weapon so tolerances are kept at a minimum. Once debris actually makes it way into the action itself, it will require extensive cleaning and is less forgiving in that area as an AK.

My personal thoughts on AK’s is that no matter what you do to an AK, there is no easy way to mount an optic that is centerline to the bore. The riveting process of installing a side scope rail along with the stamping process of the receiver itself or even milling process- will allow for minute alignment differences on the rail to the bore ratio meaning even a BDC style optic might be zeroed for a specific distance yet be off several inches at greater distances. Hinged top cover mounts due to the receiver flex are also not going to hold zero that well- though some have come close. The best overall rail system for the AK is perhaps the Polish Beryl M96 style that actually mounts on the trunnion blocks themselves- but this only adopted by one country so far. Another limiting factor about the AK is the sights that at best are useable only to about 200-300 meters and that is only from a rest. I’ve shot my AK’s out past that distance with irons, even using Kreb’s peep style AK irons with William’s apertures- but it’s not easy if not down right difficult. Using a Tech Sights narrow front sight post also helps as the factory ones were made to be the width of a man’s shoulders at 100 meters- which is roughly 18-20MOA at that distance.

The AK can be accurate, I’ve owned some that are 2MOA in 74 pattern either in 5.45 or 5.56NATO within ranges under 400 meters. However they are still limited by some ergonomic draw backs that can be remedied with aftermarket components- selector levers for instance, better sights, last shot bolt hold open followers, rail systems etc.

Overall, the AK I’ve found to be much more forgiving in terms of durability, parts longevity and reliability but the drawbacks are noted. If was dropped in the middle of nowhere for weeks on end, I’d choose an AK. However for most applications, an AR is the better overall rifle- if anything, just for parts procurement and ease of working on the rifle.

Interesting. This place rents full-auto guns and goes through ammo by the pallet. AKs seem to be the more reliable choice (no surprise there) but they do break and require regular maintenance to keep running.

The same place reports also handling AR-15/M4 (as well as MP5, Uzi, and other) rentals that also see large ammo volumes. You’d think if the AR-15/M4 was so terribly unreliable the owner posting this info would be the first to complain about them or just cease to offer it as a rental due to the problems. Eight pages of posts and no AR-15 reliability hating, just details of how and where AKs break when subjected to high ammo volumes.

It would seem properly-maintained service firearms can normally be expected to offer good, reliable service.

>> the AR is excellent for mounting optics along with keeping iron sights for back up. In addition it has probably the best overall ergonomics of any rifle out there along with parts support that is unmatched anything available within the USA. The parts themselves are drop in compatible and don’t require much in the way of actual gunsmithing to install. The rifle because of it’s unique centerline driven gas system is exceptionally accurate. The weapon itself serves well in a variety of climates and conditions as long as it is maintained.

Probably might be the reason it hasn’t been discarded yet.

>> it is made to be an accurate weapon so tolerances are kept at a minimum. Once debris actually makes it way into the action itself, it will require extensive cleaning and is less forgiving in that area as an AK.

Possibly true. If you want perfect reliability with no maintenance, stick with a club. Even a knife or axe needs maintenance to maintain an edge. As soon as you decide on a self-actuating device with moving parts something is going to fail eventually.

I did read about that place in Nevada, they said Uzi’s break charging handle components on the topcover. HK’s seem to be pretty reliable with exception of extractor springs. AK’s they rent the most because a lot of people want to shoot them that come from over seas so if they get 80K rounds through a $400 WASR, it’s probably a good investment on their part. As far as AR’s I don’t know, they didn’t discuss it.

I do remember reading about some info from Pat Rogers saying pretty much AR’s running carbine courses in his experience become maintenance sensitive. At least though they are serviceable. The AK you can replace springs and such but no dice on dropping in bolts.

I know the FUN group likes to focus on AR’s, which are great- it’s probably the most ergonomic design ever made. The AR is also a souless rifle and simply a tool to get the job done, whatever that may be. The end user can create what they want out of the weapon and in that respect- reflects the personality of the operator.

The AK though dated in it’s concept is more handmade, the parts are hand fitted from bins where the barrel journals are measured on each piece then numbered to match the journal diamters of the barrels themselves. The engraving, stampings, welds even the early wood furniture can vary depending on production runs. Each country had it’s own way of building them, along with design changes along the way.

The AK speaks more of the human spirit that despite being behind the crushing oppression of communism, the people who built them put their own artistic touch on them. Collectors know this and this comes up in discussions quite often among the most dedicated individuals. You can see it in the shades of the varnish on the iodine stained furniture. The amount of “roping” you might see in a bakelite grip or plum handguard that sometimes borderlines on absolute artistry likely because the guy pouring the mold wanted to show such creativity. The welds were something that whoever did them took great pride in making sure they are as crisp and deep as they can be- grinding the tips of the welder down after so many weapons made. Rivets formed perfectly and uniform. The inspection proofs varied but you can tell whoever did those inspections, cared about making sure they left their mark on that weapon- it was their signature if you will.

Only in truly shithole regimes do you see these touches go away, almost like the people working those factories had no pride in what they were doing anymore, nothing left inside of them- not even enough to take pride in their workmanship. Mid 1980’s Romanian guns for example looked like hell, welds looked like cornflakes, and the bakelite was dull along with the lackluster nearly unfinished wooden furniture compared to similar time frames of Russian guns, Hungarian or even Polish guns etc. The interesting thing is, that once the wall came down, the iron curtain parted, the production went more toward modernizing more of the process and these touches somewhat went away- almost like the people no longer needed an outlet for their creativity as they embraced democracy.

I’m not aware of any mechanical device, firearm or otherwise, being “soulless” or speaking of the human spirit. My firearms, computers, appliances, and other devices are just tools. How well and reliably they work is all I care about.

The military makes me shoot the M16/M4-series because that’s what is issued. I’d be equally content to compete with anything else as all the other shooters will be using the same thing at those events and the playing field remains equal.

I’m not much of an Across The Course competitor, but when I do shoot High Power Service Rifle I choose the AR-15 because it’s the proven, superior choice over other options. Same for action shooting. I’ll gladly use something else if/when it proves to be better.

I like what I use because they continue to work but I have no attachment. I guess I’m soulless like that.

That’s exactly the difference between the hardcore collector and those that just shoot. I have a Tula plum pistol grip here for one of my AKS74U projects that I paid well over a hundred dollars to get specifically because of the amount of “roping” that it has in it. Some would say that is crazy but when hunting down parts for a rare build as a collector- that is what interests me. There is an entire segment of the AK collecting community that would go full retard over an original Tula 83 matched topcover, bolt, carrier, and trunnion- maybe even spend five years to find the parts like I did. I once had Bob at K-Var bin dive for me searching through over a hundred populated barrels just to get a specific mold number on an AKSU front sight block for an early 80’s gun- some Russian parts got mixed in with the Bulgarian ones and the collectors go out of their way to find those parts. Then if that isn’t enough, try finding an original dated sling to that weapon, original drop case, original dated mold marked shiney plum Tula magazines with extra bonus for the white roping in those mags as well. And then if you have the sickness, the real sickness- you finish out the project with a matching dated Izhevsk Makarov that you spend over a grand for because it was made during the same time period and maybe would have been issued as a kit to some officer or tank commander during the Afghan conflict.

I’ll put it this way. I have more money tied up in one of my early 80’s Tula AKS74U’s than what you would pay today for a new Knight’s SR25. I have more money tied up in my early 80’s RPK 74 or early 80’s AKS74’s that what someone would pay for fully kitted out SCAR 17s. Why? Because that is collecting, it’s interesting. I have my shooting rifles, AR’s, HK’s, etc. My SHTF rifles, modernized AK’s, AUG’s, etc. However the rare ones, the early 80’s Kalashnikovs, the ones that take years to acquire just the parts to put one together then have the components force matched, or acquire the correct mold number for the correct trunnion block specifically for that year, then have perhaps the contours adjusted on a certain part for that year of production- that is what does it for me. The master gunsmiths that can create this level of detail number in the single digits. I wouldn’t take anything for some of those guns. Museum grade pieces if you will.

That is true, being able to hit your target is paramount but I also own both for those roles and for collecting. I have my long range rifles, DMR/SPR’s (though I lean toward SPR’s roles for the small cals), carbines, and collector pieces. When I was younger, I was into the collector items, now days, polymer this and that, accurate, high speed, modern etc. I could show you a fully kitted out M4A1 Block II 14.5 with the DD FDE RIS II and drag out an early Russian 74 build from the same safe. It’s about having balance as well, learning about different rifles, and how far you can take them.

M-16 Jams Fucking Often –
With Fatal Results to The Carrier of The Gun
By George Belanusgeorgeb@3states.net
11-10-3
Jeff – I noticed your editor’s question on the story about PFC Patrick Miller, where it was asked why so many American weapons jam during heavy combat situations.

On a quick reading of the story, I noticed that Miller said that he had grabbed his rifle when they got stuck in a shoot-it-out type situation. This means to me that Miller grabbed the standard-issue M-16 that has been Army and otherAmerican military branch issue since the Vietnam War.

And that answered the question in just a couple minutes’ time, since the M-16 has always had this reputation of crapping out through jams just when you need it to work in the very worst way. The stories of our guys being found dead in Vietnam after firefights with a hopelessly jammed M-16 are legion, and apparently the so-called fixes the military put in place early on have not remedied the basic problem — what we have in the M-16 is a basically inferior design as far as inherent ability to function under adverse conditions.

The situation with the M-16 is that it operates on direct gas pressure on the action of the rifle to operate the bolt during ejection of the spent cartridge case and subsequent loading of a fresh round from the magazine. This at the time the M-16 was introduced to American troops was a major departure. The old M-1 Garand, the M-14, and the Ruger Mini-14 all work on an indirect gas action. This means that the gas piston under the foreend of the rifel works on a carrier which in turn is attached to the side of the rifle’s bolt. The gas from the piston pushes the carrier to the rear, and the carrier in turn pushes the bolt to the rear to eject the round and get another fresh round out of the magazine on its return cycle. No gas works on the innards of the rifle directly on the older military rifles and the Mini-14, as is the case on the M-16. Consequently, you don’t find gunpowder residue building up in the action’s working parts on the older rifles as you do on the M-16. And this buildup does occur in 100 to 200 rounds, which is easily gone through either on a firing range during practice and even more so, I’ve heard, when you’re returning fire during a firefight.

And the M-16, if my memory of some readings in past years is correct, is also prone to adverse effects from things like dirt and SAND collecting in the action also, which doesn’t help but gum up the works also.

Early on there was an explanation forwarded that the type gunpowder used in the initial lots of 5.56 mm ammo the M-16 uses clogged the works up more than usual, and that particular type powder was replaced by another type. And more attention was put to more frequent cleaning of the M-16 by the troops who had to depend on them. Also there were some changes made on the M-16A1 model, including that forward-assist button that was supposed to help seat a round in the chamber if the gun started to gum up to the point of maybe jamming. The firearm also got one of those selective fire switches that you could dial up a new three shot burst feature with also instead of just single shot, on safe, or full automatic. This was supposed to help in reducing the innards getting crudded up.

Apparently all those fixes didn’t help Miller out since there was that reference to his having to beat on the rifle to get rounds chambered. What that reference means to me is that he was having to resort in a rapid fashion to using the forward assist button to get that next round chambered so he would have that next shot to defend himself and his fellow troops with. Good thing for Miller and his buddies that he didn’t lose sight of what to do in a bad situation with the firearm wanting to jam up with each shot.

On the other hand, I once had one of those Ruger Mini-14s in semi automatic mode, back in the days when 20 and 30 shot clips were readily available for that type and other types of rifles. You could go through maybe a hundred rounds on the firing range in a short time period in semi auto fire, heating the barrel and other parts up fairly well, and it never jammed up. As noted previously this rifle uses the indirect gas action arrangement to function the action for each shot.

And the old AK-47, as well as the SKS rifle that preceded the AK, have apparently never had any problems with jamming like the M-16 has apparently had right up to the present day. I was fortunate enough to see a TV interview during a documentary on the AK with Mikhail Kalashnikov, the Red Army man who developed the AK-47. He said that he built that Army rifle ‘loose’ on purpose to make it as dependable as possible. Apparently he succeeded since I’ve never heard of any AKs jamming in a pinch. And I’ve also heard that some Viet Cong personnel were in the habit of leaving those WW II vintage SKS rifles at the bottom of a local stream only to take it out when some of our troops came in range, then open fire on them without having to do anything to the SKS other than load some ammo into it so it would shoot. They’d pop off up to ten rounds, I guess, and then put the SKS back into the stream and disappear back into the nearest village or rice paddy.

I guess all this shows that elegance in design might be a good thing, but dependability is a lot more important when you’re talking about a rifle or other firearm you might have to use to save your life with in a bad situation.

And that answered the question in just a couple minutes’ time, since the M-16 has always had this reputation of crapping out through jams just when you need it to work in the very worst way. The stories of our guys being found dead in Vietnam after firefights with a hopelessly jammed M-16 are legion, and apparently the so-called fixes the military put in place early on have not remedied the basic problem — what we have in the M-16 is a basically inferior design as far as inherent ability to function under adverse conditions.

The situation with the M-16 is that it operates on direct gas pressure on the action of the rifle to operate the bolt during ejection of the spent cartridge case and subsequent loading of a fresh round from the magazine. This at the time the M-16 was introduced to American troops was a major departure. The old M-1 Garand, the M-14, and the Ruger Mini-14 all work on an indirect gas action. This means that the gas piston under the foreend of the rifel works on a carrier which in turn is attached to the side of the rifle’s bolt. The gas from the piston pushes the carrier to the rear, and the carrier in turn pushes the bolt to the rear to eject the round and get another fresh round out of the magazine on its return cycle. No gas works on the innards of the rifle directly on the older military rifles and the Mini-14, as is the case on the M-16. Consequently, you don’t find gunpowder residue building up in the action’s working parts on the older rifles as you do on the M-16. And this buildup does occur in 100 to 200 rounds, which is easily gone through either on a firing range during practice and even more so, I’ve heard, when you’re returning fire during a firefight.

And the M-16, if my memory of some readings in past years is correct, is also prone to adverse effects from things like dirt and SAND collecting in the action also, which doesn’t help but gum up the works also.

Early on there was an explanation forwarded that the type gunpowder used in the initial lots of 5.56 mm ammo the M-16 uses clogged the works up more than usual, and that particular type powder was replaced by another type. And more attention was put to more frequent cleaning of the M-16 by the troops who had to depend on them. Also there were some changes made on the M-16A1 model, including that forward-assist button that was supposed to help seat a round in the chamber if the gun started to gum up to the point of maybe jamming. The firearm also got one of those selective fire switches that you could dial up a new three shot burst feature with also instead of just single shot, on safe, or full automatic. This was supposed to help in reducing the innards getting crudded up.

Apparently all those fixes didn’t help Miller out since there was that reference to his having to beat on the rifle to get rounds chambered. What that reference means to me is that he was having to resort in a rapid fashion to using the forward assist button to get that next round chambered so he would have that next shot to defend himself and his fellow troops with. Good thing for Miller and his buddies that he didn’t lose sight of what to do in a bad situation with the firearm wanting to jam up with each shot.

On the other hand, I once had one of those Ruger Mini-14s in semi automatic mode, back in the days when 20 and 30 shot clips were readily available for that type and other types of rifles. You could go through maybe a hundred rounds on the firing range in a short time period in semi auto fire, heating the barrel and other parts up fairly well, and it never jammed up. As noted previously this rifle uses the indirect gas action arrangement to function the action for each shot.

And the old AK-47, as well as the SKS rifle that preceded the AK, have apparently never had any problems with jamming like the M-16 has apparently had right up to the present day. I was fortunate enough to see a TV interview during a documentary on the AK with Mikhail Kalashnikov, the Red Army man who developed the AK-47. He said that he built that Army rifle ‘loose’ on purpose to make it as dependable as possible. Apparently he succeeded since I’ve never heard of any AKs jamming in a pinch. And I’ve also heard that some Viet Cong personnel were in the habit of leaving those WW II vintage SKS rifles at the bottom of a local stream only to take it out when some of our troops came in range, then open fire on them without having to do anything to the SKS other than load some ammo into it so it would shoot. They’d pop off up to ten rounds, I guess, and then put the SKS back into the stream and disappear back into the nearest village or rice paddy.

I guess all this shows that elegance in design might be a good thing, but dependability is a lot more important when you’re talking about a rifle or other firearm you might have to use to save your life with in a bad situation.

I can’t believe this is still going on. I keep getting notifications about this argument. For me, I run AK’s in 5.45, 5.56, and 7.62×39. My preference is in that order. Overall having spent a couple decades shooting them along with other rifles, I find the AK to be a good overall rifle. I trust them more than I trust my AR’s as I’ve had far less reliability issues shooting AK’s. I think the AR is as dated of a design as the AK is and both are outdated in my opinion but in a lot of ways- they are perfect for what they are.

I like that both rifles can now be outfitted with modern optics, that both can have picatinny rails and mounts. I also like that both rifles look good “naked’ with just standard hanguards, regular sights/carry handle etc. I ‘m not one to join the rail revolution with extended rails that go nowhere so I’m fine with a basic handguard quad rail and perhaps some type of low power optic. Both the AR and the AK carry well, both designed by soldiers for soldiers, point naturally, and are simple in their design for the most part. I can wipe off a carrier group and run a bore snake down either in a matter of seconds- with a slight nod to the AK for simplicity.

Bottom line, I can take silhouette headshots with an AK 74 at 400 meters just the same as I can with an M4 at the same distance. They are so close in accuracy it isn’t even an issue. If you want to run one free floated, hand load some ammo, and dump some money on optics- sure you might squeeze more accuracy out of the AR but for me I don’t care. I wouldn’t feel undergunned either way. I wouldn’t replace either in my collection with something newer either- though I do own SCAR’s, AUG’s, and HK type rifles- I will still keep my AR’s and my AK’s.

Finland Gives Up New Rifle Program, Will Modernize Rk. 62 to Serve Until 2035

The Finnish Commander of the Army has announced that the Nordic country will not be purchasing 5.56mm replacements for their existing 7.62x39mm caliber Rk. 62 rifles, but instead will seek to upgrade the venerable Kalashnikov-based Valmet. Altair.com reports (machine translation below):
Finland gives up the purchase of a new automatic rifle cal. 5.56 mm. Old RK 62 for the cartridge 7.62 mm x 39 will be upgraded and will be used until 2035.

The prototype of the modernized 7.62-mm automatic rifle RK 62M presented at the beginning of August. Until this standard is to be adapted most of the models used by the Finnish army / Photo: MO Finland
Commander of the Finnish Army, Lieutenant General Seppo Toivonen said that Finland plans to resign from purchasing until the end of the decade a new, individual arms. Until now, the search for a successor was assumed previously used design, powered cartridge 7.62 mm x 39, through new models of firing ammunition 5.56 mm x 45 NATO standard in countries belonging to NATO and the widespread of the world ( Finnish ARX 160? , 2014 -11-29). Such rifles, in a small number will get only special forces soldiers for which you purchased the Belgian FN SCAR-L ( Weapons for Finnish commandos , 2014-03-13).
The army decided that our old rifle, it is still an effective weapon that meets the requirements of the battlefield, so it will be used for a long time in the future , said gen. Toivonen. Thus confirmed previous reports that the Ministry of Defense in April that is widely used in Finnish armed forces RK 62 automatic rifles remain in service even until 2035.

The army will have to cope with financial constraints and their implications for defense. Over the next few years we will have analyzed how many of the older kinds of weapons will be able to continue to be used and then selected to be the priorities of modernization , said the commander of land forces.
Nevertheless, introduced in 1965. RK 62 automatic rifle with milled castle chamber (and its variants: RK 62 TP with a folding stock; RK 62 VV with a lateral assembly to night vision devices, RK 62 TP VV assembly and folding stock), developed on the basis of the Soviet AK (some sources state that as a reference constructions were used models of contemporary Polish PMK, produced under license in Radom), will be slightly modified. Changes may also include RK 62-76 / TP with the pumped chamber of the castle, produced in 1977-1982.

By the end of the year created 200 prototypes of modernized rifles, which are to receive the name of the RK 62M. Weapons testing, made by the first soldiers from the new collection, to be launched in 2016.

The weapons are equipped with a stock of adjustable length, and also obtain a new, more convenient sling in place of previously used simple strip of leather. In addition, RK 62M will be provided with a supplementary universal mounting rail STANAG 4694 standard (compatible with older STANAG 2324, the US MIL-STD-1913, popularly referred to as Picatinny ) located above the chamber castle.Before bed, on the basis of midges or directly on the barrel, it is to be located optional aluminum mounting with three short pieces of rail, located throughout the sides and bottom. The top rail is used for mounting the optical and optoelectronic sights and thermal imaging equipment and nokto-, side – for mounting flashlights, laser indicators and backlights purpose.

Finnish special forces recently adopted the FN SCAR-L, and it was expected that the Finnish Army would follow suit. The Rk. 62 was adopted by the Finnish Army in 1962 and production began in 1965, replacing both the SVT-40 semi-automatic and aging Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifles. Production ceased in 1998.

TFBTV included the Rk. 76, a stamped-receiver variant of the Rk. 62, in its list of five great overlooked rifles. As long as the rifles themselves remain serviceable, it’s likely that the Rk. 62 will only be usurped if another technological shift occurs, as the design is extremely sound.

Finland Gives Up New Rifle Program, Will Modernize Rk. 62 to Serve Until 2035

The Finnish Commander of the Army has announced that the Nordic country will not be purchasing 5.56mm replacements for their existing 7.62x39mm caliber Rk. 62 rifles, but instead will seek to upgrade the venerable Kalashnikov-based Valmet. Altair.com reports (machine translation below):
Finland gives up the purchase of a new automatic rifle cal. 5.56 mm. Old RK 62 for the cartridge 7.62 mm x 39 will be upgraded and will be used until 2035.

The prototype of the modernized 7.62-mm automatic rifle RK 62M presented at the beginning of August. Until this standard is to be adapted most of the models used by the Finnish army / Photo: MO Finland
Commander of the Finnish Army, Lieutenant General Seppo Toivonen said that Finland plans to resign from purchasing until the end of the decade a new, individual arms. Until now, the search for a successor was assumed previously used design, powered cartridge 7.62 mm x 39, through new models of firing ammunition 5.56 mm x 45 NATO standard in countries belonging to NATO and the widespread of the world ( Finnish ARX 160? , 2014 -11-29). Such rifles, in a small number will get only special forces soldiers for which you purchased the Belgian FN SCAR-L ( Weapons for Finnish commandos , 2014-03-13).
The army decided that our old rifle, it is still an effective weapon that meets the requirements of the battlefield, so it will be used for a long time in the future , said gen. Toivonen. Thus confirmed previous reports that the Ministry of Defense in April that is widely used in Finnish armed forces RK 62 automatic rifles remain in service even until 2035.

The army will have to cope with financial constraints and their implications for defense. Over the next few years we will have analyzed how many of the older kinds of weapons will be able to continue to be used and then selected to be the priorities of modernization , said the commander of land forces.
Nevertheless, introduced in 1965. RK 62 automatic rifle with milled castle chamber (and its variants: RK 62 TP with a folding stock; RK 62 VV with a lateral assembly to night vision devices, RK 62 TP VV assembly and folding stock), developed on the basis of the Soviet AK (some sources state that as a reference constructions were used models of contemporary Polish PMK, produced under license in Radom), will be slightly modified. Changes may also include RK 62-76 / TP with the pumped chamber of the castle, produced in 1977-1982.

By the end of the year created 200 prototypes of modernized rifles, which are to receive the name of the RK 62M. Weapons testing, made by the first soldiers from the new collection, to be launched in 2016.
The weapons are equipped with a stock of adjustable length, and also obtain a new, more convenient sling in place of previously used simple strip of leather. In addition, RK 62M will be provided with a supplementary universal mounting rail STANAG 4694 standard (compatible with older STANAG 2324, the US MIL-STD-1913, popularly referred to as Picatinny ) located above the chamber castle.Before bed, on the basis of midges or directly on the barrel, it is to be located optional aluminum mounting with three short pieces of rail, located throughout the sides and bottom. The top rail is used for mounting the optical and optoelectronic sights and thermal imaging equipment and nokto-, side – for mounting flashlights, laser indicators and backlights purpose.
Finnish special forces recently adopted the FN SCAR-L, and it was expected that the Finnish Army would follow suit. The Rk. 62 was adopted by the Finnish Army in 1962 and production began in 1965, replacing both the SVT-40 semi-automatic and aging Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifles. Production ceased in 1998.

TFBTV included the Rk. 76, a stamped-receiver variant of the Rk. 62, in its list of five great overlooked rifles. As long as the rifles themselves remain serviceable, it’s likely that the Rk. 62 will only be usurped if another great technological shift occurs, as the design is extremely sound an extremely reliable and the accuracy of RK-95 and RK-62 comes very close to M16. This is clearly a better weapon for Alaska in blizzard at -56 F.

Compared to the best AK:s M16 suffers from poor reliability (case Vietnam) because its structure makes it very sensitive to the residue left by propellant.

Both of the posts above with the same first name of “Harri” are also from the same IP address and different email accounts but both from @student.uvasa.fi. As with all Finnish college students, they’re very concerned about the AR-15 and its use in the United States, particularly in Viet Nam, decades before their births. Of course, Finland’s military also rejected the FN SCAR-L as a general issue replacement of the Rk 62 but no equal amounts of hate to that one.

I have not shot this particular Kalashnikov variant but I’m sure it’s a solid, general-issue rifle. In any military, updating an existing and still-suitable mass-issue small arm will always be more cost effective than switching. While I don’t have any personal concern over what the Republic of Finland issues (now or in the 1960s), I also would have chosen to keep and update the current rifle.

I’d say after owning two SCAR H, that the AK is far more robust than the SCAR series. Perhaps that is why they kept the RK 62. In addition, the SCAR cannot be completely field stripped without special tools, mainly the small piston that requires a tool to remove from the gas block. Plus the older model pre 76 was a milled receiver and I doubt they have worn those out yet. I have a SCAR and I wouldn’t trust dropping it five feet let alone surviving in constant sub zero temps.

Though I like my SCARs for their modularity which I think they would serve fine on short duration missions but no way in hell would I take one into Indian country for any extended period of time without support. I’m not AR/M16 fan for many of the same reasons, durability primarily but in this case- I think even the AR/M16 is more robust than the SCAR.

I spent several years designing the most reliable carbine for all of North America. The Arsenal SLR 106FR. Now granted as you have shown in your videos that an AK can be filled with sand till failure, this one won’t fail as long as you don’t purposely fill it with sand, crossing streams, crawling through mud, and sub zero temps- it will work. It has the heavy mass of a 7.62×39 carrier coupled with the upgrades of the Russian 100 series but purposely designed to infringe on Russian patents. Unfortunately Arsenal decided to discontinue the rifle but having owned several of them, I can say they are the most reliable 5.56NATO rifles in North America- be it Colt 6920’s, Steyr AUG’s, or even SCAR L’s. One note, if you do end up crossing a muddy creak, pop off the topcover to give it good shake out- or not, and just fire it as is. Shoots about 2MOA or better, which is fine in my book.

The man that built the proto-type to the SLR106 series that led to the SLR107 series to my specs in the late 1990’s- is Mr. Marshall. He wants to put together a book after my suggestion and the Firearms User Network suggest- documenting every detail of his final builds before he finally retires.

See in these Youtube-videos where and when US Army is currently exercising with The Finnish Army. This all takes currently place at Niinisalo training site in Finland. This is the first time US Army is exercing in Finland. Currently there are 200-300 US Army elite soldiers training with the Finnish army at Niinisalo (2.5.2016 – 13.5.2016). See how US Army faces the simulated attack made by dozens of Finnish Leopard 2 battle tanks firing their 120 mm guns to the US positions. See how AK-47 (RK-62 and RK-95) have superior reliability in the battle field compared to the notorius M16 derivative (AR-4).

In Vietnam War the JAMMING of M16 could only cleared by a cleaning rod which had to be assembled in the heat of the battle.

In the beginning, they’re doing test to see if 5.45 deflects after passing trough think bushes.

Earlier in the video one of the “experts” talk about the two. M16 has a longer sight distance and peep sight, it make is more accurate in single shot mode than AK 74. 5.45 also has a milder recoil than 5.65
AK has open shorter sight radius which makes faster target acquisition and better in full auto.

The test comparison starts at 5:30
In after water submerged AK fired without problems.
M16 fired only once. Internal Deformation occurred.

Dust test
AK fired normally.
M16 was able to shot in single shot and only with the help of forward assist.

1 meter concrete drop test.
AK passed this test as well.
M16 had a multifunction due to deformed magazine.

Hey, look everybody! Another college kid from Finland that doesn’t like the AR-15.

Given that you saw fit to ignore the preceding 150 comments already addressing every one of your concerns, I’m not going to answer this yet again.

Speaking of reliability problems, your YouTube video link is broken. Perhaps if you personally ever get a chance to shoot these weapons at a level of skill above random plinking, rather than just watching YouTube videos, this might make more sense.

According to alot of sources the M16 had issues back in Nam. that is mostly irrelevent to modern times though. I am not a vet or cop or anything like that but I am someone who has put alot of time and money into training. I like the AR15 platform, my Colt 6920 went 7500 rounds with only one cleaning and no real malfunctions that tap-rack-bang
or a mag change couldnt fix. That 7500 rounds was not all square range stuff either , I have taken a few carbine courses that involved freezing weather, mud, rain, etc and have not ran into any issues that could be blamed on the DI system. So, for me, I am sticking with the platform. Also, the Arsenal 106 had alot of reliability issues early on. I personally had one that required the feed ramp to be fixed and to boot, the damn mags are $$ and hard to find. Just get a galil or wait for CAA or Kalashnikov USA to comeout with a less problematic 5.56 AK.

For you sensitive Finnish people/person (with issues) why dont you list an actual credible source for your hate of the Stoner platform?

Heres a list of guys that like, use and recomend modern AR15 variants:

the only credible instructor I have heard/read about say anything really bad
about the platform was Sonny Puzikas. Who kind of seemed like he was aiming to market his Ak classes. To each their own though.

I am actually a fan of the AK , imo it is both more rugged and durable than the AR but hardley indestructible or as hardy as fan boys claim:

To sum this up since it can go on forever, both are good platforms with their own ins and outs. Pick the one that fits your wants and needs best. Both have served as combat arms long enough to have proven themselves capable.

The ISRAELI SPECIALS FORCES DATABASE and web site states the following:

“The truth is that the M16 is by far the more superior weapon. It’s lighter, more accurate, more versatile, and with proper maintenance it is very reliable. Indeed, it might be less sand proof then the Galil/AK47 series. However, all you need is to clean it once a day and it will work properly. Since modern armies clean their smallarms on a daily even during combat deployment this is a non-issue.”

Every issued rifle that remained in service for more than a few years managed to work out those initial bugs. Just like the AR-15/M16, Kalashnikov’s famed AK-47 experienced initial reliability problems. One difference was the Soviets weren’t forced into fielding these initial design problems during Viet Nam. Consider if these initial, flawed copies of Kalashnikov’s design had been forced into combat instead of being rejected at the factory. I’m convinced if Viet Nam had happened about a decade earlier and the AK-47 was rushed into use, it would have the same stigma of unreliability.